Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine 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.Veterinary medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicineTemplate:WikiProject Veterinary medicineVeterinary medicine
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Would it be reasonable to make mention of the study being carried out to assess moxidectin as an alternative to ivermectin for the treatment of onchocerciasis, as referenced here? If no-one has any objections, I will add this to the moxidectin article. Regards, Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This reads like an ad for Bayer. A Wikipedia article should have a section that includes possible adverse effects and other criticisms, and it should draw on studies performed by those who do not have a financial incentive in the product. Since these may be difficult to find, the threshhold for reliable sources may be lower in the criticism section than elsewhere. (Like all pharma companies, Bayer has an incentive to fund studies that push its products.) Just for example, what are the side-effects if an animal (accidentally) ingests the medicine, at various doses? What are the long-term (10+ years) effects of using it monthly? Etc. As currently written, the article needs to be flagged as advertising. Benefac (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
In the meantime, a rather important weakness of the article is that the only reference for health and safety info is to Bayer's own marketing stuff. Someone should find a neutral article about the *safety* of this product. Createangelos (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
