Talk:One Little Pill

Substantial bias

I'm not going to comment on the altruistic motives of disseminating effective treatment options for alcohol dependence; that is a subject that does not lend itself to criticism. However, this article is alarmingly biased, and reads like promotional materials for the pharmaceutical naltrexone. There is no discussion of the film's content, production history, or critical reaction. It makes expansive claims about the efficacy of naltrexone not only for alcohol dependence but for addiction in general, and its references are to clinical trials that show favorable outcomes only. Reading it raises suspicion that it was written by the pharmaceutical company that makes naltrexone, or by the producers of the film. If its original editors don't address these issues, I will consider deleting it. Alanrobts (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have studies that show the drug does not work reference them. If you have film reviews that show critics disliked the film then reference them.

The main source for the effectiveness of the drug are books written by the treatment's inventors and the application for approval of naltrexone for treating alcoholics. Except for a few minor side effects the testers did not find any problems. On behalf of the British Government the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was looking for problems, they are a tough group who frequently turn down cancer drugs for not being cost effective. Andrew Swallow (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the material on this page is taken directly from the creators of the film; I am not sure if this is malicious or was just an attempt to save time. But I've used the Sinclair Method, it has saved my job and my marriage, and showing my wife the film was key in getting her to bear with me while I tried the method. So I'd really like to see some page about the film avoid complete deletion. This material is definitely not from the makers of naltrexone, as it is a generic drug well past patent expiration in the U.S. (Also, you can use nalmefene or naloxone with the method.) As far as studies, studies of the Sinclair Method show that it conclusively works (in rats and people). However there is a huge amount of misinformation about how naltrexone works and how to use it effectively, so we could cite some studies that show very little effectiveness when used as an "anticraving" tool for example. The key value of the film is to promote using the medication properly. As far as getting critical reaction, this could be difficult, I haven't seen anything substantial. So what is the right way to improve the page? Pebkach (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have taken some time to address some of the concerns within the article, such as the concerns regards its content being to close to an advetisement rather than a review. I am happy to work with people address the content to avoid the deletion of this article. I will add at this point that I have no direct affiliation with the One Little Pill film and I have just chosen to look to resolve this in a positive manor as I see the articles presence doing more good than harm now that the violations have been addressed in full or part. If you feel that this hasnt been address fully yet then please let me know. decardo111279 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.187.213 (talk)

Yes, the article has flaws but I would not like to see it deleted. Like Pebkach, this documentary also assisted me with my girlfriend and the topic, the Sinclair method, also saved my life. No lie, it really works. I didn't believe it when I first heard about it either. It all sounded too good to be true, but I was desperate so I tried it... and it actually worked. Since I found this method, the "Sinclair Method" Wikipedia article was deleted. This is tragic because it was through this Wikipedia article "Sinclair Method" that I found the method. Thx1138az (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was some sinister deletion of "Sinclair Method". There's a page called The Sinclair Method, but I can see that it needs A LOT of TLC. I've been reviewing the research, I'm sure we can make the page a lot stronger. And link it from a few more places, that might have pointed at "Sinclair Method" instead... Pebkach (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deliberate deletion of page "Sinclair Method" is not in doubt. Andrew Swallow (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

So I see now. Fascinating that the consensus was that this was self-promotion of Sinclairs research, as he's deceased. Pebkach (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on One Little Pill. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.contral.com/resources_02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)