Talk:Hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which "African Americans"[edit]

My primary concern with this drug approval is not political so much as one based on understanding that there may not be any reason to think that a person East African ancestry who is considered "Black" may not benefit from this drug any differently than anyone else if the genetic trait that makes it more likely to be beneficial simply isn't there.

If the only testing that has been done with respect to ethnic groups is to prove that it works better in Americans of African decent, then this point needs to be made really clear to any person who considers themselves of African decent but who's ancestry comes from a part of Africa other than the regions commonly used in the slave trade that produced much of the ancestors of the United States population group being studied.

If you had Russian ancestry, would you be enthusiastic about taking a drug that had been previously disqualified as not beneficial, but when they re-ran the study separating people into groups by continent, "Europeans" did well... if the vast majority of the "Europeans" being studied had Spanish ancestry?

I think this point needs to be made really clear to those of non-slave-trade African ancestry, if they are considering this medication! Zaphraud (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I changed "self-identified" to "genetical". This drug is based upon reality, not political correctness. This drug only works with black people and not with people who imagine to be black, in fact that would be dangerous. You're welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.0.196 (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tag-first race based Rx[edit]

I added a fact tag to the sentence that BiDil was the first race-based Rx. I believe Primaquine for instance, before the discovery of G6PD and subsequent testing, was counterindicated for some individuals based on race (according to the beliefs at the time). --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the same. Bidil was licensed for exclusive use in one race group - that is a first.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content about race as socially defined and without biological connection[edit]

Before anyone claims that using [1] in the context of this article constitutes original research, please note that we do exactly the same thing in the BLP Ken Ham to note the divergence of Ham's beliefs from the scientific consensus using [2], which doesn't mention Ken Ham at all. What's sauce for the goose... DavidLeighEllis (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The section header was not appropriate per WP:NOTFORUM so I have changed it to something that is appropriate and directed to article content per se. Please do follow WP:TPG. About your edits here and here. I reverted them here About your diffs and your remarks above. First, see WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS. Second, your second edit was WP:SYN. I believe I dealt with the issue that concerned you in the content, in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick response to the question raised here, I'll link to two articles easily found online, one a scientific journal article and one a popular magazine article. These may both be good sources for the Wikipedia article we are discussing here. Racial Categories in Medical Practice: How Useful Are They? PLOS Medicine Genes Don't Cause Racial-Health Disparities, Society Does by Jason Silverstein The Atlantic 13 April 2015 I should be able to find some other sources not too long from now. This is an issue that I read about a lot and is frequently discussed in a journal club I attend at a nearby university. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 00:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is sourced to death already. Look at it. And if look at the actual objection, it didn't challenge the notion that race is a social construct, just the part about there being "no biological connection". The heart of the objection to the way this drug was labelled is that it was a label based on the social construct (e.g. there was no diagnostic test to determine if a person would benefit) Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for more medically reliable sources particularly about BiDil. There are several major authors on the topic who have not been cited for any sentence in this article yet. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hydralazine/isosorbide_dinitrate&oldid=1198828008"