Talk:Guaifenesin protocol

The last sentence of the article doesn't make sense. Can someone clarify, please? - Bitt 23:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Quackery

Calling the protocol "quackery" is POV. This has therefore been reverted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:21, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is quackery, in sense that if majority scientific opinion finds in a study neither evidence for greater effectiveness that a placebo and also shows proposed mechanism of action not to occur. Drivel nonsense suggestions of using medications off-license remain placbeo wishful thinking, however much a small group of patients report anecdotal improvement. Of course find reliable source to confirm mechanism for proposed action and of clinical benefit and that's an entirely different senario - but a proposed traetment being suggested in a wikipedia article as being beneficial must be appropriately cited to verify claims, else the anecdotal reports count as non-permitted original research David Ruben ^Talk 19:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is quackery or not, calling it quackery (or drivel nonsense) is POV. More accurate would be to say that no study has shown it to be effective, and no study has shown it to be ineffective. I certainly approve of your sourced additions of possible psychological mechanisms -- it's important to include this -- but I don't think this sentence should have been removed:

However, the study did not control the intake of salicylates absorbed through the skin via cosmetics.

That's simply factual, and is sourced to the study. The studied measured Guaifenesin use without salicylate control, and found no effectiveness over a placebo. No controlled study has measured the effectiveness of the full Guaifenesin protocol (which includes salicylate limiting). Perhaps it would show no effectiveness, or perhaps not. The article doesn't (and shouldn't) speculate. The sentence should be included. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my comments above a bit too pithy true (and a little bit tongue in cheek) :-) Aside from any personal view of mine (ok disclose in talk pages, but indeed strictly against policy for article space), fair enough that some mention be made of this. However it needs some rephrasing as the study paper does attempt to consider this (see "XVII. Comments" and its third point "3. The uricosuric action of guaifenesin was blocked ..." where they discuss use or not of salicylates, and possible exposure to low-levels and why on basis of biochemistry tests they think unlikely (but agree do not entirely rule out). Would you like to offer a rephrased version of sentance (needs remain short and not to make this over convoluted), else I'll come back to this - again thanks - oh, edit conflict/thread below... David Ruben ^Talk 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempts at POV

I have attempted to improve the NPOV of this article in the following ways:

1. Moving the criticism below the description in the lead
2. Instead of saying that the study "rejected" the protocol, saying that the study "cast doubt" on Guaifenesin (since the study covered only guaifenesin use).
3. Changed from saying that the theory "remains strictly theoretical; there is no conclusive evidence. . ." to that it "remains theoretical; there is no clinical evidence. . ."

I also added a ref to St. Amand's rebuttal. I hope this article now simply presents the facts, as can be agreed on by both proponents and opponents of the protocol. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC) changing

I would have moved the NPOV pendulum a little further than "cast doubt on Guaifenesin", but not so much that worth getting fussed over - so seems fine :-) David Ruben ^Talk 14:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence for the efficacy of the guaifenesin protocol. The single, quality, double-blinded clinical trial, overseen by St. Amand, himself, was completely negative. Only after the trial came out negative did St. Amand come up with the trace salicylate idea. So, yes, to be NPOV, the pendulum needs to swing a bit more away from, for example, calling it a treatment for fibromyalgia. Desoto10 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"demonstrated lack of clinical efficiacy"?

I can't read the references cited here. But from context, shouldn't this be a lack of demonstrated clinical efficiacy? If what tests have been done don't show whether it does work, rather than show it doesn't? 108.45.79.25 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guaifenesin protocol. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023185628/http://www.fmnetnews.com/resources-alert-product6.php to http://www.fmnetnews.com/resources-alert-product6.php

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) 19:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)