Talk:Gold-containing drugs

Gold treatment

The page is slightly redundant with gold treatment, although the material here is much better on sources. I have done some copyediting.

I removed the paragraph on autism. There are no systematic programs investigating the use of gold in detoxifying from thimerosal. All is based on isolated case reports (and some reporting by Dan Olmsted, of course, the autism journalist extraordinaire), and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've looked into the links. Boyd Haley is the only researcher actively studying gold salts for autism. That makes for very limited notability, especially because this is a rather unorthodox approach unlikely to meet with any form of success (or publication). The Richards paper is actually a few years old, and does nothing but chronicle the sparse literature documentation of neurotoxicity of gold. The conjencture about thiomersal is Haley's own, dutifully reported by Olmsted. A short look at Toxic Teeth will reveal more about Haley. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dan can be proud: gold salts work[1]. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anecdotes

As far as I can tell, the use of gold salts in autism as presented in the article is based mainly on anecdotal experiences and speculation. The I-had-one-patient-who-responded argument may work in the casual setting (or an infomercial for that matter), but I think we need to apply more rigor in Wikipedia. Andrew73 00:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, you are not casting the remarkable recovery of 'Donald T.' as a red herring. The vast amount of debate over the use of chelating agents for treatment of autistic spectrum disorders makes the research of Haley and Horning essential reading for Wiki readers interested in such topics, not to mention that their endeavors reflect a quite compelling new avenue of research. Ombudsman 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It could all be true, true, and unrelated. Chelation needs more rigorous research, not just one person's dramatic recovery. Otherwise, we may as well continue blood letting, etc. based one person's experiences. Andrew73 02:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Predictably, the "long version" of the autism material was reinserted. WP:NPOV speaks about undue weight (WP:NPOVUW). I think that the rheumatoid arthritis use, numbering millions worthwide, should be given more prominence than the experiences of one controversional researcher on a handful of patients. When I copyedited the article I reduced the paragraph to:

A 2002 paper (Richards et al) chronicles the neurological side-effects of gold salts reported in the medical literature. Mercury activist Boyd Haley has suggested that it may reverse conditions attributed by some to mercury administration, such as autism[2].

This is all that can actually be said about this. The anecdotal report is many decades ago and has not been duplicated. I urge Ombudsman to adhere to policy. JFW | T@lk 08:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the untold story is the very soul of what scientific integrity is all about. In this case, the unconscionable creep toward complete resistance to any scientific curiosity that might upset the big pharma apple cart is quite palpable and emblematic of the lost credibility of once proud and prestigious medical journals. The insistence of medical authorities on diverting research funds away from common sense avenues of study has only served to exacerbate the absurd paucity of investigations into the severe adverse reactions to thimerosal, including the medical establishment's virtual silence on the matter of gold salts. Besides, you have offered no evidence that millions are being treated for JRA with gold salts, as methotrexate is the convention, much less for its use as an intervention for anything else. The research is undeniably of great importance to understanding the mystery of autism and autistic enterocolitis, poisoning by heavy metals, and a raft of other disorders, ranging from ME/CFS to IBD. Silence on such matters is just another sin being committed by medical authorities and corporate media, but that sin of omission has no place within the Wiki. Ombudsman 11:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

All this is lecturing and opinion, and your tone is quite annoying; I am not "the medical authorities" and I do actually exhibit curiosity. Shortening your excessive material on autism is not a "sin of omission" but an attempt to restore balance.

I did not say that JRA is treated with gold; all I said was that millions of people have, through the years, been treated with gold. That cannot be said about autism. JFW | T@lk 12:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made one final attempt to restore balance, going by what is rather than what ought to be[3]. If this is not acceptable, I suggest we have an WP:RFC over this. JFW | T@lk 12:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Describing repeated wholesale deletions as a form of restoration is tantamount to doublespeak. The issue isn't simply about the number of patients treated with gold salts, it is about research investigations and scientific integrity, exemplified by the fact that for over seven decades, about the only research on the effects of thimerosal was a fatally flawed farce, conducted ages ago, using terminal patients. Unlike that 'study', research such as that being conducted by Mady Hornig and Boyd Haley can be characterized as long overdue and true to the basic tenets of legitimate scientific advancement. Despite the profound lack of scientific curiosity about the effects of thimerosal characteristic of the medical establishment, billions upon billions of doses of neurotoxic TCVs have been injected into innocent children, millions of whom have subsequently been afflicted by severe vaccine injuries. When balanced against this travesty, the enforcement of silence that furthers the shame of the autism epidemic tragedy is an egregiously untenable proposition, to say the least. If the lack of studies, beyond that of Hornig and Haley is proffered as an excuse for suppression, then how can the medical establishment be excused for its scandalous marketing of thimerosal sans even a glimmer of essential research? For that matter, how can the secrecy surrounding the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference and Vaccine Safety Datalink be excused? Please quit trying to pass off your wholesale deletions as some sort of restoration, especially given the fact that a broad range of basic reasearch is desperately needed to better understand the causes of autism and to ascertain what interventions are most efficacious for restoring some semblance of health to the untold millions of vaccine injury victims. Ombudsman 18:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is really about the number of patients (i.e. not standard of care, use is still experimental/investigational) and also giving the use of gold salts in autism undue weight (pun intended!)...since the majority of gold salts' use has been in rheumatologic conditions. Would you expect an article about autism to have mainly material dealing with "autistic enterocolitis"...probably not. Perhaps for the gold salts article, a few lines about it would be appropriate, and more of the commentary reserved for the autism-focused articles. Andrew73 19:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've copied it over to the autism article. Andrew73 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman has reverted to his preferred version. I will not address the moralistic lecturing and the substantial WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues in his reply above. I have now requested RFC.

For non-medical readers: gold salts have been used for some forms of arthritis for decades, on 100,000s of patients worldwide. Last year a journalist with an interest in autism discovered that a young autism patient improved mentally when his coincidental arthritis was treated with gold salts. A researcher with an interest in mercury has suggested that it may work. Nobody has tried, and animal studies have only just started.

I think that the present (long) version of the autism paragraph constitutes "undue weight" and would like to hear the community's opinion on this. JFW | T@lk 20:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you just summed nicely the the cureent state of the knowledge, and that is nicely NPOV, with out holding back this potential new development. --KimvdLinde 20:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur Midgley 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Ok, I read the request for comments. I read the page, and it does strike me that the pice on authism is primarily ananecdotal, which sounds to me more as a POV than anything substantial (aka, sources needed to substantiate claim, if not, one sentence will do the whiole job of announcing that goldsalts maybe are benificual for authism). Furthermore, this is not something that should be listed under Gold salts, but under authism. Just my 0.02 cents. --KimvdLinde 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If there is an appearance of undue weight in this article, it pales beside the complete lack of weighty research into the effects of thimerosal, for most of the last eighty years, ever since the bogus 'seminal' study. That single study was, oddly enough, the only 'research' ever cunducted to 'validate' the mistaken use of TCVs for decades upon decades, as autism cases skyrocketed in lock step with the vast increase in recommended additions to vaccination schedules. Now there exists a critical need for effective interventions that has been caused by the utter failure of the medical establishment to review its gross negligence with regard to the huge number of questions arising from the autism epidemic. Mendacity by omission has no place in science, much less an alternative medium like the Wiki. This RfC comes across as an epitome of double standards. Ombudsman 21:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I can not see what most of your responses have to do with my remarks. Lack of research in something else is not the issue here. Besides that, Wikpedia is not the place for activism, but for encyclopedic information. As such, the authism part is not suitable for wikipedia. --KimvdLinde 21:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstood, but the comments above were meant to address the broader issue of the medical establishment's propensity to behave like an empty echo chamber. Try this, go into a medical facility and speak to one of the nurses or administrative staffers about virtually any topic pertaining to how the facility is run, but do so as if you had respect for their intelligence, and as you would address a competent adult. Chances are, they may get a frightened look in their eyes, and then say something to the effect that they can't discuss such matters. The problem with this RfC is the same. The rigid, hierarchical medical system, in general, is akin to a cute furry doll with an ipod, one that is easily programmed by big pharma. As far as anecdotes are concerned, use of TCVs has skyrocketed in recent decades, despite the fact that the only 'evidence' of its safety was worse than a bad joke, because of the sorded tragedy surrounding it. Downplaying the significance of the individual who recovered to a great extent (and who is still alive, so it isn't past tense) is simply distractive nonsense, as depicting the case, which has triggered promising current research, as anecdotal evidence is merely a charade. Research on most of the current therapies available is progressing abysmally, though there are several promising interventions, most of which have yet to be studied rigorously because medical authorities insist on diverting research funds elsewhere. The perpetrator of this RfC appears to have backed down from the claim that there have been 'millions' of patients treated with gold salts, and the fact that most such cases were probably many decades ago, and understandably has shied away from addressing the fact that billions and billions of people have been administered an untested, unconscionably neurotoxic poison, based on a Farcefarcical study that doesn't even begin to compare, in terms of scientific integrity, with current studies being conducted on gold salts. Findings from such studies will open the door on insights into the etiology of other disorders as well, whether or not gold salts prove to be especially effective or not for autistic spectrum disorders. Your comments do not mention whether or not you've looked into reports on these studies, but that isn't the only reason to question your characterization of the autism section. The relevant science is inherently interesting, or at least should be for anyone who has an interest in the article for any reason other than to police content. The researchers performing the studies are risking their careers precisely because of the great importance of these lines of inquiry, despite the escalating climate of fear that has, increasingly, squelched numerous realms of investigation in concert with the growing financial influence of the pharmaceutical industry. A strong understanding of the scientific, economic and political context should easily dispel any allegations that the section in question is simply soapboxing. If you want the Wiki to mimic the empty echo chamber effect that puts fear in the eye of medical facility staffers, then go right ahead and deny the reality that research into the effects of gold salts on autism are anecdotal soapboxing. And while you're at it, ignore the fact that soap operas have given way, in terms of advertising, to big pharma advertising. Ombudsman 03:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In reponse to this comment, which does not address the RFC but is mainly a criticism of me, I have left a message on Ombudsman's talk page, so as not to disrupt the RFC[4]. JFW | T@lk 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman. I am quite aware of the mess in some corners of the medical establishment, and the last thing I want is that the medical establisment would determine what can and cannot be said at wikipedia. I read the piece as a scientist, but one that could care less about what the establishment is telling that is true. However, that does make the alternative automatically true. At the moment, there is nothing beyond anecdotal evidence and an experiment on mice in progress. I am not suggesting that the content should be removed completly, please read what I wrote. However, Wikipedia is NOT the place for activism. That gold salts might be benificial for authism is great, and needs to be mentioned, but draging the whole vacination debate to it is beyond the scope of this article. --KimvdLinde 04:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes the relevant science is interesting, but again this is a content/context issue. Expounding about the observations about gold salts in autism are better served in an autism-focused article and not in a general gold salts article. Andrew73 12:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think mentioning potential new uses is ok under a specific medication, but not far beyond that.--KimvdLinde 16:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The disagreement is not about mentioning it or not. I have conceded that this is potentially relevant, but I disagree with the very lengthy paragraph, including copious direct quotes and unsupported speculation, that Ombudsman seems to prefer. I have yet to receive an answer why the longer form is better than the shorter, more to-the-point form. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered that the whole section on gold salts is completely duplicate with a similar section on autism therapies. Instead of rattling off the whole story here, I have reinserted my fairly balanced but shorter paragraph with a link prominently connecting to the autism therapies article. For a treatment that has only speculated about, this is amazingly detailed coverage. I'm still awaiting a to-the-point answer from Ombudsman what the merits of a long narrative are compared to this form. JFW | T@lk 01:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have shortent it now somewhat to much. I read a bit more relevant stuff in it. Will have a look tomorrow. --KimvdLinde 05:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The entry in gold salts should not be an exhaustive accounting of its use in autism...that's why there's a separate section in autism therapies. Andrew73 13:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What's missing? Please reinsert what you think is necessary. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC The placement of the gold salts as a reference to the autism treatment article is appropriate. A large number of Autism treatments have come and gone. The gold salt article is a reasonably likely destination for interested readers to come. Redirect to the appropriate article is good database design. Kd4ttc 23:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Weighing in here

I think perhaps we should think about how we organize the body of knowledge related to biomedical treatment of autism and related neurological disorders. Putting ourselves in the shoes of a reader interested in the topic, our foremost responsibility is to a) give them a complete sense of the various controversies, and b) help them organize their thoughts about it all.

The way I understand the argument, it's something like this: "if you accept the premise that autism is caused by mercury poisoning, then it is possible that gold salt treatment will alleviate the poisoning, since gold salts have an affinity for mercury."

The premise is disputed within Wikipedia and elsewhere, but it seems to that we should refer the reader to Thimerosal controversy for a full introduction and dispense with anything but the reference here. The issue that should be addressed here is a) whether it is reasonable to hypothesize that gold salts might help if there is indeed mercury poisoning; and b) whether the evidence supports, rejects, or leaves uncertain the hypothesis.

I think the current form is pretty good; I would add Halsey Boyd's word of caution, though. I think most people will understand that one case is anecdotal but certainly worth following up on. We shouldn't need to characterize it as one thing or another. --Leifern 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

External links on uses in autism

I moved five of these links to the autism therapies article where they more appropriately belong. Andrew73 17:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I had initially removed these, with the argument that the links belong there. Ombudsman predictably reverted, with the nonsensical edit comment that it was "valid material"[5]. For once I did not disagree that this was valid material, but it doesn't belong here. JFW | T@lk 18:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed --KimvdLinde 19:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Not satisfied with having dismantled the main body of the article, a little more disassemblage that serves to hide the current intrigue surrounding gold salts (which is why the article exists in the first place) is no big thing. Or is it? Is there a reason for playing hide and seek games here? What could be the motive for such cloaking? Is it possilbe that a promising method for treating heavy metal poisoning (which may very well be useful for a sizable variety of autoimmune disorders) is simply irrelevant to the main article here? Why, that certainly must be the 'sensical' reason, because getting caught hiding virtually every trace of evidence wouldn't look good and wouldn't make sense. That might make it look like there was something or other even bigger to hide, like big pharma behind the little curtain, wouldn't it? So, judging from the above, it just wouldn't be worth the time to look past the little 'nonsensical edit' excuse, eh? Ombudsman 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any cloaking going on. Why not put all those links in every article that has to do with autism then? Or on the main Wikipedia page for that matter? In addition to some of JFW's points below, the number and content of the links are simply out of proportion to the overall content of the article. Andrew73 00:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No hiding, just seeing an article, and making sense of the content. And the potential usage of gold salts is better covered under Authism therapies, so I agree it should go there. --KimvdLinde 01:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it was your predictable edit comment that I labeled nonsensical, because you did not address my concern that the links dealt specifically with a use of gold salts that was not covered here.

The main body of the article was not dismantled, dear Ombudsman. The main body is still there, namely the material on the commonest clinical use of gold salts. Your version focused on a theoretical, experimental use propounded by a couple of people (Dan, Boyd and their buddies who think we live in an age of autism caused by thimerosal) vs the thousands of rheumatologists who occasionally resort to gold salts in RA, and certainly have done so for decades.

Anyway, we've been through this. Please stop seeing Wikipedia as a tool to advance your views/theories/dreams and start understanding the meaning of concensus. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your perspective notwithstanding, the article has effectively been eviscerated by the removal of content regarding the renewed interest in gold salts. The treatment of autism is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of treatment utility, as many other disorders associated with neurotoxins and impairment of methyl transfers will likely be found. Autism represents both a pressing need for such interventions and an example for readers to ponder. The section removed also touched upon the likely means by which gold salts appear to alleviate symptoms, which has left a huge void. In fact, the evisceration has left little more than a skeleton or shell, making it vulnerable to shell games for shills to play off. Given that the estwhile viscera provided insight into the possible avenues by which iatrogenic harm can be mitigated, the ongoing efforts to gut and cut the article to the quick constitute a disservice to the Wiki and its readers. Ombudsman 05:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are again gazing in a crystal ball. I accept that interventional studies will be useful to confirm utility of gold salts (or shark cartilage, or Heaven knows what). Until then, we have one journalist and two scientists, and a lot of excited bloggers. That's not what I would call notability in any other topic. The Wiki will change when the evidence does.

It is rather easy for me to zip through Medline, link some disease with some obsolete treatment, and then ring a journalist. With a bit of luck, the journalist will write "Dutch doctor has found innovative treatment for POEMS syndrome". Especially when that journalist happens to be a senior writer with his agency and have a longterm personal interest in POEMS syndrome. But evidence it ain't. It's science by press release. Rather postmodern, that's for sure. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a gold salts article, not a treatment article. Most of what you claim are speculations, not based on facts. If you have verifiable, reliable scientific sources for this, bring them on to this talk page, for the rest, WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. --KimvdLinde 05:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That sort of comment is irrelevant and diversionary. In case you haven't noticed, soap operas have turned into drug company infomercials. Discussion of scientific investigations into the efficacy and modes of symptom reduction are essential for providing a full overview of the topic. Filibustering the talk page with diversionary, off topic rhetoric is not in the best interests of actually building an encyclopedia. Ombudsman 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said: If you have verifiable, reliable scientific sources for this, bring them on to this talk page. And if they bring new insights relavant to Gold salts as a product, we insert it. --KimvdLinde 05:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Thimerosal controversy is the place for it really, an article called theories of causation of autism, or begging the question rather Autism and Mercury, would be better, because I don't see any way in which Gold salts contribute to controversy about Thimerosal. Still, it would keep speculation about the future tucked up with argument about the past. Midgley 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

Good links, to reasonably WP:RS publications, but do they actually add anything to the article, and if so, what, please?

• Economist.com - 'Gold fingered: An unexpected discovery may help explain how old arthritis drugs work', The Economist (March 2, 2006)
• Harvard.edu - 'HMS researchers find how gold fights arthritis

+ Sheds light on how medicinal metal function against rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases', Harvard University Gazette (2006)

The Economist is very good at doing medciine for economists, and I like reading it on aircraft, but there are more primary references, and there already seem to be references listed for everything given there. Perhaps leaving them in the talk page for the assistance of anyone coming later would be better? Midgley 12:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mode of action

COuld be a heading in teh article...Midgley 12:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Toxicity

Gold intoxication - Chrysiasis -

http://coseinteressanti.altervista.org/gold_silver.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.92.154 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Gold salt = jargon?

A quick glance suggests that the article is often not about gold salts but gold complexes. RS-Au-PR3 is not a salt for example. Maybe the term "salt" is jargon popularized by folk who are not very chemically attuned? --Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)