Talk:ECHO-7

Notability

See current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#RIGVIR – Fayenatic London 08:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing zero clinical evidence for this, and the article reads like a testimonial - if no one can provide 3rd party peer-reviewed references, I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg85 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia newbie from Latvia here: Drg85 is correct, there have been no clinical trials, as Rigvir was registered in national registration process before Latvia joined EU. Rigvir page is highly promotional, without verifiable references, user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redijs has also tried to insert the same unsubstantiated efficacy claims in other pages on cancers for which Rigvir has 0 evidence. I have added some edits regarding current state of evidence and fine applied by Health Inspectorate of Latvia due to illegal advertising, unfortunately the sources are mostly in Latvian. Also, one of the contributors to "Virotherapy" page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Riga_virus. The name "Rigvir" itself is a shortened version of Riga Virus, so this could be a case of self-promotion. KC LV (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Who approves medicines in Latvia?

They should probably be named in this article with a link to them (even if it is red). Biosthmors (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the state agency for medicines (www.zva.gov.lv), I have linked to Rigvir's registration details on virotherapy#specific projects and products. I suspect due to lack of suitable sources this article will be deleted and the only reference to it will be on that page, and possibly naturally oncolytic viruses which I will soon create from the reolysin article and anything else I can group into one page. Viraltonic (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It might stick around though. Biosthmors (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I read your previous discussions. The drug is found in Latvian drug register [1] and indeed was registered in 2004 like they claim. In Latvian press this thing is covered as if it was greatest invention of our time BTW, according to the news today Arabs love it too (specifically UAE is interested in allowing its use because supposedly their citizens are going to Latvia for cure) :D ~~Xil (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources

• no reviews in Pubmed
• nothing in traderag FierceBiotech and nothing in FiercePharma
• nothing in Scientific American
• nothing in NYT
• nothing in WSJ
• nothing in LA Times

• there are 5 primary sources in pubmed, only 2 in English... Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

This review [2] mentions it (and seems to accept it increases overall survival in melanoma patients). Is the review article MEDRS ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

MDPI is a borderline predatory publisher. Not preferable. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a new review article available via DovePress - would this be considered predatory or not? [3] KC LV (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC) KC_LV

Doesn't appear to be in PUBMED/MEDLINE, which would suggest it's not a good source. Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! If it is a recent publication, could it still be indexed in Pubmed at some point later on? There are some major news in Latvia about Rigvir, but only available via Google Translate at the moment. Oncologist and oncologist-chemotherapist associations are asking to remove it from drug register, reimbursable drug list and clinical guidelines due to insufficient evidence: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Maybe someone with more experience in MEDRS editing could help with this?KC LV (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)KC_LV

Additional source is available: an extensive overview of Rigvir story was published in Latvian Materia Medica magazine for healthcare professionals in October, a translation in English was published on the website of Latvian Sceptics Association: http://skepticisms.lv/enciklopedija/rigvir-when-science-takes-a-back-seat/KC LV (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)KC_LV

Would it perhaps be better to change the name of the section "Criticism" to "Controversy"?--KC LV (talk) 11:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to have an EU Horizon 2020 grant for wider commercialisation in the EU

Aug 2015 - Is this a good enough source to mention the EU grant ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

for something to be noteworthy enough to include, we look for independent sourcing; a report from the granting entity is not independent. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

criticism/wikiproject med post

[8]...Ive no doubt that the sources you cite are trustworthy, in terms of PubMed the latest is a review....Babiker, Hani M.; Riaz, Irbaz Bin; Husnain, Muhammad; Borad, Mitesh J. (2017). "Oncolytic virotherapy including Rigvir and standard therapies in malignant melanoma". Oncolytic Virotherapy. 6: 11–18. doi:10.2147/OV.S100072. ISSN 2253-1572. Retrieved 11 August 2017.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)...you could add reliable[9] sources to the 'History' section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

That journal isn't MEDLINE-indexed, which is a worry. Alexbrn (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

true, [10]PubMed is all there is...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional and extensive news article is available in English, from main Latvian news network - about lack of evidence and the stance of Latvian Ministry of Health: http://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/health-ministry-defends-claimed-cancer-treatment.a248914/ and http://bnn-news.com/cancer-treatment-medication-rigvir-remains-on-the-list-of-compensated-medicine-170904KC LV (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

SBM

I notice this is now on SBM's radar - a useful source per WP:PARITY. Alexbrn (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Most recent edits, 19 January

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RIGVIR&action=history It seems that Rigvir falls under the classification of fringe theories, therefore using ScienceBasedMedicine.org as a source and quote from Dr.Gorski is in accordance with WS:PARITY. Could a more experienced editor please help with a second opinion here so edit warring can be avoided?KC LV (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The SBM source is good and necessary for WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources added

Recently an editor claimed that there is insufficient evidence regarding this statement "Oncologists and other medical experts in Latvia have repeatedly expressed the concern for the lack of clinical trials and evidence of efficacy, as well as unethical advertising" and deleted both the statement and a valid reference. More supporting sources from Latvian media are here: https://irir.lv/2017/10/26/zurnals-zva-noslepa-neatkariga-eksperta-negativo-atzinumu-par-rigvir (in Latvian) https://irir.lv/2017/2/7/rigvir (in Latvian) https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/health-ministry-defends-claimed-cancer-treatment.a248914/ (in English) https://eng.lsm.lv/article/features/commentary/resolving-rigvir.a253515/ (in English)KC LV (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Efficacy of sources

Reference #6: Ylä-Pelto, J; Tripathi, L; Susi, P (23 February 2016). "Therapeutic Use of Native and Recombinant Enteroviruses". Viruses. 8 (3): 57. doi:10.3390/v8030057. PMC 4810247 . PMID 26907330.
Comment: In the mentioned article there is no mention of concerns expressed by Latvian medical experts as it is given in the Wikipedia. So, the article remains as credible for reference, however, if we did a reference it was canceled with WP:PROFRINGE.

Reference #7: Ritums, Eduards (October 2016). "When science takes a back seat".
I did some research on this source and here is an elaborate comment: “Part of this blog is based on the article that is published by author E. Ritums initially in a very specific marketing magazine for Pharmacies. This magazine is published by the Medicine Information Centre (http://mic.lv/materia-medica/ ) that is not registered in the register of mass media and even provide marketing services (http://mic.lv/materia-medica/). In addition, the content of this magazine (according to law in Latvia) is considered to be specialized publication and may not have public access. The author however (based on google search) is young graduate from faculty of Chemistry that in addition to this article has published few (~3) more small articles and hardly is respectable journalist. Publication consists of number of fact errors and doubtful allegations and there is no respectable or proven sources, books or reviewed publications indicated as reference. Moreover, former manager (for 12 years) of the same publisher and magazine Inara Rubene ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/inara-rubene/) is presented as independent expert here. The biggest issue is, however, the fact that this article later, bypassing limited access info (according to law) to specialists, was translated (with inconsistencies) and spread widely with help of very small, non-registered NGO – Skeptiskā Biedrība (https://www.lursoft.lv/lapsaext?act=URCP&ref=LurTop&regcode=&task=search&company_name=&tipas=&CompanySearchForm%5BcompanyName%5D=Skeptisk%C4%81+Biedr%C4%ABba&CompanySearchForm%5Bcountry%5D=&utf=0&general=Skeptisk%C4%81+Biedr%C4%ABba&cid=LVA_NG_PROD), that operates web site – www.skepticisms.lv. Do you consider this as trustworthy source to build part of your story on?”

Removing Oncologists and other medical experts in Latvia have repeatedly expressed the concern for the lack of clinical trials and evidence of efficacy, as well as unethical advertising. and rewriting for neutrality.157.37.101.237 (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

negative content is not non-neutral in WP. We summarize reliable sources and for something marketed as a drug with this little published evidence, yes the kind of source cited there is something we use. See WP:PARITY. Jytdog (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for the explaination, however the accusations of quackery (a harsh term for any product or brand) lack evidence and reference on empirical evidence that ECHO-7 does not work. There is no publication or empirical research, or trial conducted that ECHO-7 does not work. Your thoughts? 2405:205:1102:2846:FC3A:54DA:D1C8:91E2 (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Here in WP if there is not evidence that X works to treat a disease and it is marketed for that purpose, we say that with absolute clarity. WP is not a vehicle for hyping unproven treatments. Quite the opposite. We follow evidence-based medicine and what matters is that there is no evidence that it works. Jytdog (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, previous comments about "unregistered" sources are not truthful and, unsurprisingly, come from Rigvir company's response to Dr. Gorski here: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/rigvir-strikes-back-or-a-conversation-with-a-rigvir-flack/ Just to clarify, Latvian Skeptics Association is not an unregistered NGO, as can be seen here: https://company.lursoft.lv/en/par-skeptisku-kritisku-un-racionalu-domasanu-42/40008189555, it was registered in 2012. The same applies to the journal Materia Medica. Contrary to claims of Rigvir representatives, this journal was registered in the register of Latvian mass media in 1994. Here's an excerpt from Lursoft database (https://www.lursoft.lv/lv/masu-informacijas-lidzekli, unfortunately that specific section is behind a paywall):

Name: zurnals "MATERIA MEDICA" Registration number: 000701593 Date of registration: 17.11.1994 Owners Medikamentu informacijas centrs, Sabiedriba ar ierobezotu atbildibu (50003190831) 17.11.1994 Riga, Riharda Vagnera iela 15KC LV (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Just FYI, in Latvian media the story of Rigvir possibly being a major case of fraud is pretty much exploding and a lot of disruptive editing is to be expected and has already started. Both Latvian and English Wikipedia articles have long been bombarded by what seem to be representatives of the company or their publicists, reposting material from their own websites: More info here: https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/health/calls-for-official-probe-over-rigvir-cancer-treatment-scandal.a314845/ KC LV (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected for a couple of weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!KC LV (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no good evidence that medicine is an effective cancer treatment

Several oncologists, who are based in Latvia have repeatedly expressed the concern for the lack of clinical trials and evidence of efficacy, as well as unethical advertising. I'm looking for the research papers on Echo7, will incorporate if there's any. OrthodoxMD (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)