Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 16

Molecular weights in drugboxes
displays the value as "xxx g·mol−1", that is, with the units automatically added. We currently have a lot (almost 5000 by a quick heuristic--please don't run this query a lot, it's expensive) articles that include units in their molecular_weight value, meaning the display includes the units twice. See for example Morphine, where 285.34 g/mol is rendered as "285.34 g/mol g·mol−1". So that needs to be cleaned up. Many of these have the molecular formula given in a way that the drugbox can calcluate and display the weight automatically. Does anyone have a preference for retaining the hardcoded masses (clean up by removing the units from the value) vs allowing the automatic calculation (clean up by removing the molecular_weight field altogether)? DMacks (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting and working on this. Is the latter proposal to remove molecular_weight from the template itself, or to delete the parameter entry in boxes where it can be automatically calculated? I suppose the problem with the former case is your comment that many of these have the molecular formula given in a way that the drugbox can calcluate; the concern being many rather than all. If the vast majority of boxes can calculate the mass/weight automatically, then the hardcoded weight is redundant and it would be better to remove it. Klbrain (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would edit per-page to remove the redundant field. I would not want to remove support for the field from the template itself, because there are cases where autocalculation (as we currently implement it) does not work. Once we solve the redundant cases, the cases where we still hardcode could be a second edit-pass to convert to autocalculated where possible. DMacks (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise, thanks for bringing this up! I'd support removing the molecular_weight values wherever possible. One thing less to take care of. BTW, the drugbox apparently gives the exact same molecular weights as DrugBank when it calculates them automatically; but ChemSpider has slightly different values. I assume this is a rounding error or the like on part of ChemSpider. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand why this information has been removed from the infoboxes. Taking cisplatin as an example, the infobox prior to 19 June 2020 said simply "Molar mass 300.01 g/mol" and I see no duplication. It certainly did not say 300.01 g/mol g·mol−1, at least on my computer. Now the molar mass is not given at all in this article, for no apparent reason. Please explain what the duplication was. Dirac66 (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is one of the cases where the drugbox can't autocalculate the molecular weight. I have restored the information. Thanks for catching this! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also thanks. I ran this with JWB and manually watched every edit, catching most that matched a regex but still should not have been removed. A few slipped through that should not have been remove and I manually corrected them. This looks like a place (only one I've heard) that those three filters all failed. I'll be doing one or more runs in the future, and will try to be more careful. Question: why is that one not written in the usual way for a molecular formula--should there be a shadow version of the usual way that allows calculation in addition to this form that includes structural detail? DMacks (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just discovered that the drugbox already supports "shadow formulæ"! Also, I'm not sure why the formula isn't given in empirical form as usual; but the drugbox documentation says "When a molecular formula or structural formula is known, that one should be entered in |chemical_formula=", so I don't want to change it without discussion, and that's frankly not worth it. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

ATC code templates
Howdy,

Currently, templates for ATC codes are under the names of the categories, not under a format such as Template:ATC code A10 (instead it's Template:Oral hypoglycemics and insulin analogs. Was there a previous discussion as to these templates being named for their names instead of their ATC codes? If so/not, would it be better to name them under Template:ATC code A10 for example, and what would be the proper way to get a consensus to do this? If not, should redirects from formats such as Template:ATC code A10 be created to the named templates so as to assist people creating articles on members of those classes? Thanks bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically I think it is a good idea to move these navigation templates, with one caveat: Template:ATC code A etc. have very similar names but serve a quite different purpose. Would this confuse people? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure. Maybe those should be moved to Template:ATC category A, as that’s more descriptive? Technically, “A” isn’t an ATC code in and of itself. But that’s getting into a whole other can of worm-changes. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * figured I'd ping just in case, also noting that I have invited WP:MED to input on this topic by linking to this section from their talk page. If anyone knows other interested parties/projects that may have information/opinions I ask you to please invite them here as this has been bugging me for a few weeks :) bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * there's certainly no problem in creating redirects (we say "redirects are cheap") and you would be more than welcome to do that job if you wanted to. I see there are 119 templates in Category:Drug templates by ATC, so it should be a manageable task. --RexxS (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * yes would agree w/ RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - would creating the redirects cause any problems/make it more difficult to switch the primary template later? If there is a redirect, does it really matter which name is the "actual" one? As far as I have read up a redirect would work the same way as the regular template, but if it would cause any issues I'd rather just work on compiling a list and then once it's decided whether Template:ATC code X0 or Template:Class of drugs should be the name, then move them all and redirect the other names. If there's literally no reason not to create the redirects, I can compile a list and start on creating them (manually, probably, given there's only 120ish) later tonight. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * redirects will not cause any problems or make things more difficult. The difference between the redirect and the 'actual' template is that the Category:Drug templates by ATC goes on the 'actual' page, so that is the name which appears on the category page. Articles where the template is placed will display exactly the same whether they contain the redirect or the 'actual' ATC template. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to categorize these redirects in something such as Category:Redirects to named ATC code templates or something? I'll go ahead and work on creating the redirects later on tonight when I'm back home since there's no problem. Thanks for all the help - trying not to break things :P bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * here's some light reading for you: Categorizing redirects. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, just to provide you some perspective how this was managed in other areas. We encountered a similar issue in the medicine and anatomy spaces over the last few years. Both were managed by putting all the templates or links on respective pages (anatomy - WikiProject Anatomy/Templates, medicine - Medicine_navs). In both cases we removed most of the identifiers (which in your case is ATC) because the are not useful to readers, crowd the template name and make it harder to read, and force some content to be or not to be in templates, which occasionally doesn't match the way our articles are structured. Additionally once one identifier is used it is very tempting for some editors to want to add their own identifiers and then it just becomes a mess. Medicine still retains a lot of the identifiers such as ICD codes, whereas in the anatomy space where we had quite a few terms we used a bot (requested here WP:BOTREQ) to move them all to Wikidata and remove them from the templates, as we felt they were not really useful at all. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this is definitely some food for thought. It may be a good idea to list them at WikiProject Pharmacology/List of ATC navboxes or similar, and then not even need the redirects - that also keeps it clearer what the templates are when the page is edited. I got quite busy the end of this week so haven't had time to look into this more yet but I'll start with that I think instead of the redirects (then just bookmark that page). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

List created
So, after finally finding the time to do it, I finished compiling the list at WikiProject Pharmacology/List of ATC navboxes - and it can be transcluded to other pages as appropriate (ex: WikiProject Pharmacology/Templates, which I added it to) to assist people in finding them easier when creating new articles/editing others.

pinging as past participants in this discussion. Now that there's a compiled list of them - what are peoples' thoughts on any form of renaming/name standardization?

Furthermore - I'll note that there's a few ATC codes that don't have navboxes and a few that are incomplete - I'm going to try to tackle those sometime but if anyone else looks and feels like creating them, please feel free to and add it to the appropriate list. An example of this is S01X which has enough products in it to probably merit a navbox template, but doesn't have one yet.

Thanks to all for the input and hopefully this can help. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Just as an example, I went through and split Template:B03, B05, B06 into three separate navboxes and updated the articles that transcluded them. I'm sure there's many more navboxes in this group of ATC code navboxes that need "fixing" or "tidying" in a similar way. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say that the table you created above is really valuable and we should copy it to WP:PHARM:TEMPL, but you already did :-) Thanks for all the work you are putting into these navboxes!
 * For the record, I have no strong opinion on how they should be named. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you think it's helpful! To be quite frank, I probably am spending way too much time on this, but it's what made me the most reserved about trying to start creating articles that don't exist is that there wasn't any compilation of navboxes - that's how I found out that lente insulin and ultralente insulin didn't have articles was by seeing them in a navbox, clicking them, and getting redirected (one was a stub, but I can't remember which). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

New templates
So... do with this what everyone will, but you can now use ATC navboxes as an easy way to add ATC code-based navbox templates to articles (and on top of that, wrap them so they don't look like navbox overload). The input is similar to this: and will produce something like this:

It works for every ATC code that has either its own dedicated template, or is significantly covered in another template. There's a few codes that have more than one template associated with them (looking at you ATC code P01), so I created wrappers for them such as Template:ATC code P01 as I couldn't think of a better way to allow them to be used but not be inaccurate. Please feel free to give feedback on this and I can try to improve it some more - hopefully this is helpful to you all. Now all that's needed is an easy way to see all pages that have more than one ATC code template on them... bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Seeking some opinions about template renaming
I have proposed a move of Antibiotics social and layman issues. Please comment here: Template_talk:Antibiotics_social_and_layman_issues. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Requests for some simplification
Hi all, I've been running through a lot of templates in the medicine space (have a look at WP:TfD) just as sort of a gnomish maintenance exercise. Many pharmacological templates are quite complex and technical - fair enough.

However, this template seems intended as a general topic overview. I can't make head or tail of it, and I've been editing in the medicine / anatomy space for like 6 years now, I can only imagine what lay readers make of it. Some comments:
 * I'm unclear about the scope here... is it just listing all types of things that act at receptors? If that's the case why is it called "pharmacomodulation" and not something like "Substances which act at receptors"?
 * Why is there a list of receptors and a heading "type"
 * What do all the acronyms mean, and do they need to be there?

Could I request some eyes and hopefully some hands to simplify or elaborate a bit on the contents? That way it can be as intended, a useful navigational aid to our readers. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So, I'll preface by admitting I haven't checked every single one right now. But per what I saw when I was going through the ATC code templates a bit ago, I'm almost positive that every single one of those sections under "Classes" (or to the side of, to be exact) has its own template. As an example, Adrenergic receptor modulators, Dopamine receptor modulators, Opioid receptor modulators (used on Opioidergic and possibly that should be redirected to Opioid instead, but that's an aside). I think a good start would be to just rip all the specific templates out of the general template, and include the general template and a more specific one on the page, or to include the information here in each of the more specific templates. I've attempted to make a start at a re-organization without the specific "classes" of receptor (ant)agonists included at User:Berchanhimez/sandbox - please feel free to take it and/or edit it as you see fit. I am not sure if I will have much time this week to look at it more unfortunately. I think it's a judgement as to whether this should include every modulation that has drugs for it (imo no because huge template results, like it is now), or whether this template should just be an overview of general topic pages and not include any specific classes/types/things that actually are modulated (yes imo). bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Routes of administration/dosage form template
Hello,

I would appreciate input at Template talk:Routes of administration, dosage forms regarding my proposed reorganization of the template, as members of this WikiProject may be interested in said template. Thank you in advance, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

MEDLINE vs Embase
Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) would probably benefit from someone who knows something about Embase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Is "comedown" a recognized scientific term in pharmacology?
I was surprised to discover this article today: Comedown (drugs). I've worked in the substance abuse field for over 30 years and I have heard "comedown" used as a slang expression only, never as a scientific term. In general, a slang term lacks notability for inclusion in Wikipedia (as an article). However, I noted that WP:PHARM is listed as a WikiProject interested in the Comedown (drugs) article, so I thought to solicit your opinions first before proposing that the article be deleted. What do you think?

Usage statistics: The term "drug withdrawal" is a massively more common Google search term than "comedown" (Google Trends); the word "withdrawal" has been used much, much more often than "comedown" in books (Google Ngrams Viewer) (admittedly an imprecise comparison); a Google Scholar search for: ("comedown" OR "come-down") AND drugs yields 19600 (nineteen thousand, six hundred) results, although many of the articles use the intransitive phrasal verb, "to come down", as opposed to the noun, "comedown". A Google Scholar search for: withdrawal AND drugs yields 1830000 (one million, eight-hundred thousand) results.

Dictionaries: Two standard dictionaries, American Heritage and Merriam-Webster, do not define "comedown"—in either noun or verb forms—as a drug withdrawal phenomenon. Merriam-Webster Unabridged includes a definition ("to recover from the effects of drugs or alcohol") for the intransitive phrasal verb ("to come down"), but not for the noun ("comedown"). The Oxford English Dictionary is the only dictionary I found that includes a definition ("The process of recovering from an episode of recreational drug use, often involving unpleasant side effects; an instance of this") for the noun ("comedown") and the intransitive phrasal verb (slang) ("to come down").

TIA (thanks in advance) for your advice. - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Withdrawal is typically used to describe not the wearing off of a drug specifically, but the the symptoms experienced when someone who has developed a drug dependence has not retaken the drug in line with their established pattern of use. Comedown describes the state where the effects of a drug are wearing off. The more scientific term for this may be, end-of-dose effect. (See also dose-response curve). As for deleting the article, Wikipedia isn't only comprised of scientific articles, so I'm not sure that should be the basis for calling for its removal. --Thoric (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Btw, looking over the Comedown (drugs) article, I think there may be too much overlap in the description of "comedown" and what would actually be considered to be "withdrawal", so the article could certainly use improvement. --Thoric (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Thoric. Great points. I shall leave the article "as is". ;0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Cetraxate, a one-sentence article
Hi, I have recently found an article on Cetraxate, which is just one sentence long (not counting the infobox and a reference). Anybody interested in expanding the article or explaining its current minimalistic state please add to the talk page section Talk:Cetraxate. --CiaPan (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Very few recent sources. It seems popular in Japan. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @JFW Pharmacology is not my area at all, but Google found this paper for me:
 * May be someone who knows the field could make use of it. :) (unless it counts as a primary source....) --CiaPan (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * May be someone who knows the field could make use of it. :) (unless it counts as a primary source....) --CiaPan (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Management of multiple sclerosis Featured article review
I have nominated Management of multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MED: Drugbox redesign talk
See this discussion about redisigning  at WT:MED:. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Turkey Tail Mushroom / Trametes versicolor
I am requesting additional editor's input on discussion and recent edits to Trametes_versicolor from a pharmacology perspective. Please see edit history and talk page. Thank you. DrGvago (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposals
There are 13 merge proposals for articles about drugs. I think that the most effective thing to do is boldly reject (key step: remove the templates from the articles) any bad ideas, boldly implement any obviously good ideas, and then see what's left. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * 01 Feb 2021 – COVID vaccine dispute (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID_vaccine_dispute&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID_vaccine_dispute&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to European Union response to the COVID-19 pandemic by Whywhenwhohow (t · c) ; see discussion
 * 24 Jan 2021 – List of drugs (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_drugs&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_drugs&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Merge by letter by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c) ; see discussion
 * 28 Dec 2020 – Cold turkey (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_turkey&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_turkey&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Drug withdrawal by Brinerat (t · c) ; see discussion
 * 13 Oct 2020 – Sultamicillin (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sultamicillin&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sultamicillin&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Ampicillin/sulbactam by Whywhenwhohow (t · c) ; see discussion ✅ not merged --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 29 Sep 2020 – Etonogestrel birth control implant (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etonogestrel_birth_control_implant&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etonogestrel_birth_control_implant&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Etonogestrel by CV9933 (t · c) ; see discussion working on it --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)  merged --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 25 Sep 2020 – Etonogestrel (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etonogestrel&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etonogestrel&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Etonogestrel birth control implant by Whywhenwhohow (t · c) ; see discussion working on it --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)  merged --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 25 Sep 2020 – Elexacaftor (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elexacaftor&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elexacaftor&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor by Whywhenwhohow (t · c) ; see discussion
 * 25 Sep 2020 – Voxilaprevir (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voxilaprevir&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voxilaprevir&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir by Whywhenwhohow (t · c) ; see discussion
 * 20 Sep 2020 – Adjuvant (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adjuvant&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adjuvant&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Immunologic adjuvant by Efenna (t · c) ; see discussion merged --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 01 Sep 2020 – N of 1 trial (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N_of_1_trial&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N_of_1_trial&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to single-subject research by Klbrain (t · c) ; see discussion
 * (3 more...)


 * 14 Aug 2020 – Growth hormone secretagogue (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_hormone_secretagogue&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Growth_hormone_secretagogue&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to List of growth hormone secretagogues by Anypodetos (t · c) ; see discussion ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 14 Aug 2020 – List of growth hormone secretagogues (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_growth_hormone_secretagogues&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_growth_hormone_secretagogues&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Growth hormone secretagogue by Anypodetos (t · c) ; see discussion ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 10 Jul 2020 – TachoSil (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TachoSil&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TachoSil&action=history hist]) is proposed for merging to Fibrin glue by Whywhenwhohow (t · c) ; see discussion ✅ Klbrain (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female)
A proposal to rename Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female) (as well as the parallel article "Transgender hormone therapy (female-to-male) ) is being discussed. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy (male-to-female).  Thanks, Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Cyclofosfamide/dexamethasone
See Articles for deletion/Cyclofosfamide/dexamethasone. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on correct terminology when referring to affinity
I have noticed that the vast majority of pharmacodynamics sections when providing a table of different targets use the term "Ki (affinity)", even when the drug is an agonist. I can't quite understand why "Kd" which does not confer any insinuation towards the type of relationship (agonist/antagonist) is not used. As it stands referring to the Ki of a drug such as codeine at the MOR is arguably nonsensical as there is no inhibition occurring. I am very curious to hear peoples opinions on how this has occurred and why it is not changed?

Wdhiwhfwaih (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * To be quite honest, we are an encyclopedia, not a chemical compendium, and as such, we should probably not be using terms such as Ki, Kd, t1/2, etc - we should instead be explaining them using words. I can completely see why it happened and why it is the way it is though - many people (myself included) tend to (accidentally) let our "professional writing style" slip into writing we do on Wikipedia - especially when writing large articles/tables/etc. I see no reason it shouldn't be changed to the word "affinity" and a receptor name in parenthesis if necessary (ex: if multiple affinities are given), or some other way. I do not feel using the letter K is in any way useful in an encyclopedia - if there were a WikiChem then sure, but not here. Personally, I would question whether many tables present regarding exact statistics/data are even necessary... you can find a lot of them at User:Berchanhimez/HIDE, but I haven't even had time to finish that project much less move on to actually removing tables that are unnecessary/not useful. We should remember WP:INDISCRIMINATE - and if a table of affinities is encyclopedic, use the terminology "affinity at X" where X is the receptor's name or acronym linked to a name. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that clarity for a wide audience is important, but one also needs to understand what the source is saying before deciding out how to describe it. Concerning receptors, it is important to distinguish between binding inhibition and functional inhibition (i.e., antagonism). A Ki is determined from a competitive binding experiment between a reference ligand (often a radio-ligand) and the ligand of interest.  The nature of the competition is the same, regardless if the ligand is an agonist or antagonist.  The Ki determined from a competitive binding experiment refers to binding inhibition, not functional inhibition. A functional assay is needed to determine the EC50 for agonists or IC50 for antagonists. Boghog (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Of interest to Pharmacology editors?
I have started a discussion at WT:WikiProject Molecular Biology that you are invited to join. It uses prostaglandins as an example but highlights some generic problems with incomplete, duplicated and sometimes misleading sets of articles. Project groups should have a role in taking an overview and improving our overall coverage of topics that cross boundaries between medicine, molecular biology, pharmacology and chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Navigation boxes at alcohol
Alcohol has a crazy amount of navboxes:

I'm afraid I don't understand too much of the chemical /pharmacological side of things and I was wondering if someone here could have a look and trim some navboxes? I'm crossposting at WP:CHEMICALS and WP:PHARM. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd scrap everything except "Alcohols" and "Organic chemistry affixes", and maybe "Functional groups" (but this doesn't contain a link to this page, only to Hydroxy group), "Alkenes" and "Amines, Alcohols: amino alcohols". Everything else is related to Ethanol or other alcohols, or is way to unspecific – about every enzyme and receptor modulator is in some way related to OH groups. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I went ahead and removed some of the more questionable navboxes. Boghog (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, should we remove some of the portals? Beer portal? Crustaceans portal? Ireland portal?? c'mon! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Promotional edits?
Some days ago I reverted a bunch of apparently promotional edits by Special:Contributions/103.56.5.54 (additions of trade names with edit summaries sounding like advertising to me). Now Special:Contributions/Onlinemedicalwriting has made a number of identical or near-identical edits. I don't want to edit-war with them, so I'd be grateful if someone else could have a look. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Giving info on false positives for drug screening in articles
Recently I've come across this clinical practice guideline (PMID 18174009) that suggests certain drugs can cause false positives on immunoassay drug screening tests. e.g. diphenhydramine can cause false positives for PCP or that sertraline can cause a positive on a benzodiazepine test. I was wondering if anyone could give any input on if we should include this information on drugs that could cause false positives (probably in the "detection in body fluids" section) as I haven't really seen these interactions mentioned in many articles and I'm not really an expert on these matters. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, understanding the classification accuracy of a test is very important. If a substance rarely causes a false positive, or it there is only preliminary research suggesting it causes a false positive, then no, it should not be included. I guess what I'm saying is that if we follow our standard policies and procedures, e.g., WP:DUE and WP:MEDRS, we should be fine. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion
Category:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Kratom pharmacology table
I've been updating the kratom page and have noticed that the reference provided for the binding affinities of kratom alkaloids is a paper from 2002. Not sure if this information is still completely accurate as of 2021, so I thought it would be a good idea to ask for help here. Are the numbers in the table in the pharmacology section still up to date? Thanks, A122045fma (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the 149 citations of the 2002 article? https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm010576e   Petersam (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Quote from a 2020 review: "Despite considerable investigation, the precise manner in which kratom alkaloids act at each of the receptors remains disputed. For example, Takayama and colleagues have produced a sizeable body of work on the subject, indicating that both mitragynine and 7-OH-mitragynine behave as agonists, with mitragynine acting primarily on µ- and δ-receptors and 7-OH-mitragynine more selective for µ- and κ-receptors [39–41]. However, competing evidence suggests a different model; rather than acting as simple agonists, mitragynine and 7-OH-mitragynine appear to demonstrate variable effects depending on the receptor. Specifically, the data show that both mitragynine and 7-OH-mitragynine are mixed opioid receptor agonists/antagonists, behaving as partial agonists at µ-receptors and competitive antagonists at δ-receptors, with negligible effects on κ-receptors [42]."


 * I was interested in getting other people's opinions here since the kratom page currently cites one of the apparently controversial Takayama papers from almost 20 years ago. There are other studies that describe different results. But if the current table seems okay then I will leave it as it is (I don't think there's anything wrong with the 2002 article, just wondering whether research has changed since then). Thanks, A122045fma (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Page move discussion at Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine
Greetings members, two page move discussions are on-going at Talk:Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. Interested editors are requested to participate/contribute. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

ATC for new drugs
ATC - Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System

From the WHO ACT website: New ATC codes, DDDs and alterations are published twice annually (Lists of temporary ATC/DDDs and alterations). On this website you will find lists of new ATC codes, DDDs and alterations which are not included in the current electronic/printed version of the ATC/DDD index. (which is published January 1st). Both temporary and final ATC codes, DDDs and alteration are included in the lists.

I had added an ATC for Aducanumab but it was revert back to None ---  ATC_prefix = None with comment <-- Scheduled to be N06DX03 in 2022 -->  even though a final decision was made for the ATC code which can be found on the website under new ATC codes.

The WHO reference : https://www.whocc.no/lists_of__temporary_atc_ddds_and_alterations/new_atc_5th_levels/?order_by=1

List of latest ATC/DDD decisions from the WHO International Working Group for Drug Statistics Methodology. Comments or objections to the decisions should be forwarded to the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology within the deadline (see list). If no objections are received, the new ATC/DDD decisions will be considered final and included in the ATC/DDD Index. In the list final indicates that the date for objection has expired. The year of implementation in the ATC/DDD Index is given in the list.

ATC code -	ATC level name -	Deadline for objection to temporary codes -	Implementation in ATC/DDD index N06DX03	- aducanumab - 	Final -	2022

Is there a WikiProject Pharmacology protocol for entering ATC for new drugs? Seems to me if the WHO Working Group has made a final decision it should be added; would a note be needed? How about the new ATCs with pending deadlines for objection to temporary codes? Petersam (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've always added the new codes at the change of the year when they become official. However, I have no strong opinions either way. I'd object to adding ATCs with pending deadlines, because if they get removed chances are that nobody will notice and we'll have wrong codes on Wikipedia indefinitely. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * A code becomes official when the Working Group, which meets twice annually, makes a temporary decision of a new code into a final decision. "Any decision on a new or revised ATC classification or DDD assignment is first published as temporary.  Any interested party wishing to dispute this decision is invited to comment within a specified deadline after its publication.  If there are no objections to a temporary decision, it will be published as a final decision and implemented in the next issue of the ATC classification index with DDDs.  In case of any objection, the decision will be reconsidered at the next meeting of the International Working Group.  If a new decision is made at the second meeting, this decision will be published as temporary and will be open to comments similar to the first decision." from https://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_methodology/who_international_working_group/   The current electronic/printed version of the ATC/DDD index is published January 1st.  Before January 1st the new final ATC codes are published as a final decision and can be found on the website under 'New ATC 5th levels'   ( https://www.whocc.no/lists_of__temporary_atc_ddds_and_alterations/new_atc_5th_levels/ )   until the next electronic/printed version.   I agree that those with pending dates should not be added until they become final.   Petersam (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The implementation in the index is not until 2022. "Please note that the ATC and DDD alterations are only valid and implemented in the coming annual updates of January 1st."

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I emailed WHOCC for clarification about new codes, alterations (AKA changes/revisions), and implementations. I added the bolding for highlighting in their reply....


 * In summary, a new ATC code for a new drug is valid when a Final decision is made as indicated on the WHOCC website. It would be valid to add a new Final ATC code to a new drug Wikipedia page now before 1 January. Temporary new codes need to wait to be Final codes before becoming valid.  Code Alterations (changes/revisions) would need to wait until 1 January before becoming valid . Petersam (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC) 03:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Is reproducing the content of an email here sufficient and valid documentation to justify using the ATC in that way? If that is the way the ATC is expected to work why doesn't the WHOCC provide that guidance on the web site? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Biosimilars in Infobox drug
It is prposed to add data point/parameter Biosimilars to Infobox drug. Please take a look at. -DePiep (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback appreciated at Talk:Anti-aging cream
It has been proposed that Anti-aging supplements be merged into Anti-aging cream. Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Anti-aging cream. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

GAR notice
Benzylpiperazine, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 06:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A block of new pages
There's a discussion about a set of new drug-class pages which contributors here might be interested in engaging with. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or User talk:Cabswang. Klbrain (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

British Pharmacological Society
It's the BPS annual meeting (Pharmacology 2021); one of the projects is to "Increas[e] the visibility and influence of pharmacology ...". Hopefully we can see further involvement from members of the society here, helping to support the aims of the society. Klbrain (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Dose-response relationship and Dose-effect relationship
Need your input at Talk:Dose–response_relationship on whether there should be a separate article on dose effect. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Is ivermectin diverse?
There is a current thread at Talk:Ivermectin to discuss how to frame a fact about ivermectin (that is, its diversity) correctly. It requires expertise in pharmacology to understand precisely what the broad spectrum / versatile / diverse / new-tricks-drug mean. Please read the thread and comment. Forich (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Pharmacognosy Research phcogres.com. Venkat TL (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Uncoupling (neuropsychopharmacology)
I need some help figuring out what to do with Uncoupling (neuropsychopharmacology). From my highly tangential knowledge about psychology more generally, I suspect this article might not have the potential to become a full article. Could someone take a look and assess if The article name is also a bit... clunky. If anyone has any advice on whether to call it Uncoupling (neuroscience) or Uncoupling (psychopharmacology) or Uncoupling (pharmacology), please let me know. Thank you for any help! Please ping me if you respond. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) it could genuinely become more than a stub
 * 2) there are other articles that this could be merged with
 * Perhaps just merge to Drug tolerance; that section needs improving too. Klbrain (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021
Hi. I would like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many countries last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes paid by WMEE and WMCH) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for the USA or Ireland or New Zealand. Such national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission at the same time. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive photos, infographics or videos to Wikimedia Commons, please consider submitting them using the WSC upload interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You're invited! January 29: COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon - Online via Zoom
--Wil540 art (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"?
New RfC on the talk page for the article, Addiction: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Addiction#RfC_re:_is_addiction_a_%22biopsychosocial_disorder%22_or_a_%22brain_disorder%22? RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"?] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"TROL" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TROL and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

missing assessment
Could someone PLEASE assesss my 2017 article Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller as obviously I cant do it myself ? Thank you !--Wuerzele (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Vaccine subproject?
I'm looking for a vaccines wikiproject that focuses on coverage of vaccines (both approved and in development), social topics around vaccines (vaccine campaigns and mandates, anti-vax coalitions) and tracking reliable sources for same (specifically sources of antivax disinfo, including the rise of journals that may not have any pharma or vaccinology editors but regularly publish antivax papers). Is there a subproject like this that you know of? If not, are others interested in seeing one get started? – SJ + 16:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Enzyme inhibitor FAR
I have nominated Enzyme inhibitor for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 23:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor
There’s been a lot written about the cost of the Cystic Fibrosis drug Trikafta. Its list price is US$311,000 per year. This has made the drug currently unavailable to non compassionate use patients in New Zealand and many other countries. I think there is far more to write about the cost, the reasons for it, and the global availability of the drug. Currently, there is a debate in New Zealand about funding the drug so it will be available to all who need it. I am certain that those in government there and the general public would benefit greatly from this articles expansion. I have not done much work regarding medicine related articles. I would appreciate any help from those with experience. Thriley (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Magnesium sulfate (medical use)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Magnesium sulfate (medical use) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 00:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Outdated Portal info
In the Categorize Articles section under How To Help, you have a suggestion to add a deleted portal template, should that be the Medicine portal instead? Penguinmlle (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Appropriate place for a requested article
I made Draft:Dibrospidium chloride from Requested_articles/Medicine/Pharmacology and it was suggested to place it under another subject. Any ideas? Lalaithan (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! As much as I'd like to tell you something else, I'm afraid that dibrospidium chloride simply isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and also not notable enough to be mentioned in an article about cancer treatment or the like). As far as I could find out, it was investigated about 30 years ago in animal studies and very small human studies, and nothing about it has been published since. So, the statement in the draft that it is being investigated for cancer treatment isn't quite right. Sorry for being negative... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the end it is practice, so no, it's not negative, or at least nowhere near as negative as many people on here can get. Russian Wikipedia actually has an uncited article on this but I can tell which studies they're cited from so I shall fix that article.
 * Perhaps the non-notable items from the lists related to this project that wouldn't work as a redirect would do better in topical standalone lists, since lists can consist entirely of non-notable items, so they can be removed from the original lists. The main page here implies the enormous amount of red link items need articles. Lalaithan (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Outdated "mono" articles
Unnecessary, redundant, obsolete, isn't it? Should probably be renamed and redirected.

Examples: 6-Monoacetylmorphine, 6-Monoacetylcodeine, 3-Monoacetylmorphine, 3'-Monoiodothyronine

No idea how many other articles like that exist (or not). That nomenclature is about a century outdated in any case.

Aethyta (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a look on the pubmed.gov and the titles there seem evenly split on 6-Monoacetylmorphine and 6-acetylmorphine, even looking at recent articles. However, the chemistry articles are clearly using 6-acetylmorphine. So, I support the suggestion of moving the articles to titles without the mono. Klbrain (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, I cannot see that such a move is uncontroversially obvious. I'd say either make a strong case here (sources, backgrounds, affected articles pattern, new name), or via WP:RM. -DePiep (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As a chemist, I’m familiar with the IUPAC nomenclature but where will we end? Move Isosorbide mononitrate to [(3S,3aR,6R,6aS)-3-hydroxy-2,3,3a,5,6,6a-hexahydrofuro[3,2-b]furan-6-yl] nitrate and create a redirect for the nomenclature-handicapped (speak, the vast majority of readers)? Alfie  ↑↓ © 16:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Isosorbide nitrate is objectively correct, isn't it?
 * You oppose, how about redirecting Methamphetamine to Monomethamphetamine then? Sounds utterly insane to me. Where would THAT end?
 * I think it's rather clear why the mono was dropped. Aethyta (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand what you mean by ‘isosorbide nitrate is objectively correct ’. Would be wrong because there is also isosorbide dinitrate. I don’t think that dimethylamphetamine deserves an article but of course, it exists. I used it back in the day in my lab as an internal standard in GC. Alfie  ↑↓ © 10:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that the absence of a multiplier prefix implies singular, mono, one. There's a million examples, like (mono)Methyltryptamine and Dimethyltryptamine. Mono isn't wrong, but if it's not necessary, when do you want to use it? Always, never, roll a dice?
 * At least when positions are specified (like 6-acetyl in the first example, as opposed to 3,6-diacetyl), it's obsolete for sure, isn't it? Aethyta (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Lavender oil has an RFC
Lavender oil has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

No simufilam article
This drug, while relatively new and not yet approved, has been in the news for a while. Odd that nobody has taken on an article. Whether it works or not is immaterial. It appears to qualify as a subject of interest to Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I created a bare bones article at Simufilam, but I haven't got access to the right sources for fleshing it out. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Some eyes on the article would be welcome because of repeated IP edits that look very POVy to me. However, I don't have access to the relevant journals, and also quite frankly not the time to handle this. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Very COI/POVy editors at the related Cassava Sciences. More eyes needed, semi-protection expires tomorrow. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I have attempted some cleanup at Simufilam, which is clearly as plagued by COI/POV editing as was Cassava Sciences. More eyes are needed at both; I have barely scratched the surface of either article; both have been hit by non-neutral IP editing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I could really use some help at both simufilam and Cassava Sciences. There have been two different types of COI editing:  1) puffery to promote the company, and b) smears to tarnish it (per the short-selling issue).  Cassava Sciences had been semi-protected twice, and the IPs are finally registering accounts and weighing in on talk (which makes for a lot of work, educating new editors).  There is much cleanup needed still.  I don't know how drug articles are typically organized, but the company proponents want to include a lot of press releases and primary sources.  I also don't know how clinical trials should be organized in drug articles, so wish some Pharm editors would take on the drug article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Enzyme inhibitor
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Enzyme inhibitor/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Cassava and simufilam

 * Could someone have a new look at the article assessment for Cassava Sciences?
 * The work at Cassava has advanced such that it may now be possible to better clean up simufilam; Talk:Cassava Sciences/Primary sources relating to the investigations may be helpful. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)