Talk:Noscapine

Rewritten?

I'm not sure what the page looked like when the rewrite tag was added, but I don't think it needs to be rewritten from the start, although it certainly does need some work. A few sections need rewording, all of it needs more and better references, but I think it rates a notch above stub-class. Mr0t1633 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and i am going to remove the "rewritten" tag. It may need clean-up, but not to be "entirely rewritten" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to pdf doesn't work?

"It has also been shown to have anticancer activity (PDF file)." This Link doesent work; it results in a 404 Error. It may be, that the site blocks my IP, because I live in Europe and thanks to that fu**ing "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" my IP is sometimes blocked. I´ve also experienced a IP-block from a phpBB-bord hosted in US and at the moment I have no time to search for proxis to make sure, wether the site blocks my IP or the site dont exists anymore. By the way, I think this pdf belongs not in the text, but at the bottom of the page. Please somebode check out wether the document still exists and if not, please remove the link and also this part of the discussion. It also may be, that the server, I tryed to connect is temporally down. So please someone check this out. Thanks. P.S.: I also think, that it is not necessary to rewrite the whole article 88.64.65.81 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Would anyone object to the removal of the rewrite tag? Certainly, the article could use more work, but I hardly think the disclaimer is (still) warranted. St3vo (talk) 03:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I will remove it. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Please

Here is the PDF link http://www.pcref.org/MedInsight%20-%20PCREF%20Noscapine%20Review.pdf I couldn't embed it -- it kept linking to a different page (alternative link: http://www.pcref.org/noscapine_research.php). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.50.53 (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC) PS There is no credible evidence under standard Western allopathic western medical peer-reviewed journals with double-blind studies, etc. To actually state that it "does" have anticancer properties. At best, it is reported by non-reputable sources to have such properties. I believe that should be made clear in the first paragraph of this article.there is no better way to dilute the authority of WP then with unadorned declarations of efficacy of nonapproved or recognized anticancer medications.

Newer citation on Noscapine and prostate cancer Jan 09

As reported in Medical News Today A study published in the December issue of the European medical journal Anticancer Research demonstrates that an ingredient used in a common cough suppressant may be useful in treating advanced prostate cancer. ... The laboratory study was a joint effort by Dr. Israel Barken of the Prostate Cancer Research and Educational Foundation, Moshe Rogosnitzky of MedInsight Research Institute, and Dr. Jack Geller of The University of California San Diego. ...

Further to the comment above, the author notes that clinical studies are unlikely to be subsidized by pharmaceutical companies because Noscapine is naturally occurring and thus not patentable. He adds a reference to the "on-line" clinical data collection system as a possible way to organize systematic research to correct this gap and refers to other studies.

65.8.124.23 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

References

"plants of the Papaveraceae family"

This is perhaps the the only opiate article which contains neither of the simple words poppy, opiate. The abscence of both those words means that the article does not stand alone as a complete article: you need to follow the link to work out what the article is talking about. This is generally considered to be a bad thing. 218.214.18.240 (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure analysis

I removed a chemically impossible statement, more experienced editors should decide the appropriateness of the rest of this section, it seems a bit trivial to me.

Mburk2 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not recommended?

"A 2012 Dutch guideline, however, does not recommend its use for coughing." If it's actually proscribed the wording would be clearer as "recommends against". If it's simply not listed, is this statement relevant? Perhaps someone could add some more context?

Also, is that publication a guideline or does it only describe current practice? 81.154.194.1 (talk) 00:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)