Talk:Sacubitril/valsartan

Valsartan/sacubitril or Sacubitril/valsartan?

All the literature I see (e.g. https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm453845.htm and https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta388/chapter/2-the-technology) puts sacubitril before valsartan (as does the manufacturer's packaging). Why, then, is the article at Valsartan/sacubitril. I think it should be moved to Sacubitril/valsartan. Any objections? SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 20:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

... What's more, the INN is sacubtril/valsartan. I have gone ahead and moved the article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sacubitril does nothing

Why do they delete factual information (on the main page) from the LIFE clinical trial that clearly shows people lived longer and stayed out of the hospital longer using just generic valsartan? Look at secondary outcome, composite endpoints of effects. Whats wrong with posting clinical trial links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Brackett (talk • contribs) 11:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Prominent physician researchers call into doubt whether sacubitril does anything at all.

Delaware judge recently invalidated the combination patent.

A careless cyanide release occurred in the entresto lab, 5 people were rushed to the hospital on gurneys, novartis forced chemists to dispense their fume hood waste OUTSIDE of the fume hood without proper ventillation because they thought it was too expensive to do it safely. Complaints to OSHA resulted in them harassing me and pushing me out, destroying my career as a chemist, I was the guy who generated reg# LBQ657, it's bunk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Brackett (talk • contribs) 11:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Steve Brackett. The reason I reverted your edits was because they were improperly sourced or contained WP:POV statements. Please have a look at WP:MEDREF and WP:MEDRS which say, among other things, that "Articles about health and medicine should generally not cite primary sources". Instead you should cite secondary sources which discuss the primary research.

As for the blog entry, in general per WP:BLOG blog posts should not be used as sources for articles. Among other things, anyone can publish a blog, the identity of the blog editor often cannot be independently verified, and blogs are not generally subject to peer review. Any information in a blog post which is sufficiently reliable probably relies on other sources which could be tracked down and cited. Further, based on my reading, the blog does not independently support the statement that any of the researchers are prominent.

As to your last comment about being targeted by the company, please also consider WP:COI and whether you are sufficiently distant from the subject to write independently. I can't quite follow your thought process so I'm not making any assumptions/pronouncements here, just suggesting you consider the possibility of COI.

I hope this helps explain, and apologies if my reasons for reverting the edits were not sufficiently explained in my original edit summary.Oblivy (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

References