This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
WP:MEDRS requires all biomedical claims to be sourced to good-quality secondary sources. This article is riddled with claims of methods of action against cancer cells that are supported by nothing more than primary studies - often animal studies. If good-quality secondary sources cannot be found to support these claims, I propose that those sections be removed from the article. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the possible uses should be included, but not emphasized in as much detail as there. MEDRS applies to the actual practice of clinical medicine , as a way of distinguishing both quackery and unsubstantiated reports from accepted science. Some of the material there needs condensation, and detail fror some of the e clinical trials needs to be reduced, but I would object to going further.
MEDRS refers to claims that something is a therapy, not that something might be a possible therapy. Decent sources are still needed, but secondary reviews in the sense of MEDRS are not required. What I would suggest cutting is the detail on the phase I trials, and possibly the phase II trials. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, MEDRS applies to any biomedical claim in any article. By requiring only the best quality secondary sources, it provides a sourcing framework that is what WP:IRS ought to be in any field where there is an abundance of sourcing. All of the claims for "possible therapies" need to be sourced to that standard, so MEDRS is definitely required. As soon as the article has settled down after the recent merger, I'll be cutting out all of the biomedical claims that are sourced to primary studies. --RexxS (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will trim the medical claims. The article is the result of unsupervised homework projects. My inclination is to remove almost everything because it is so amateurish. The problem is not the students' faults.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
