The source I cited is from the American Heart Association, a large organization with significant credibility. I believe that if the medication is included in their guidelines, it will still be considered an alternative option. Although it's not commonly prescribed, rarity doesn't necessarily mean it's never used.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to imply, but I think I've expressed clearly in my writing that these drugs carry a risk of causing DIL and that not all users will experience the same effects. Just to clarify things, though, I am writing about one of the side effects (i.e., drug-induced lupus) of these drugs that has been acknowledged and documented in scientific literature. I have no intention of promoting the avoidance of these drugs or instilling fear in people regarding the usage of these drugs. With so many unknown diseases, I think it is good to know about this information.

I don't see why being an undergrad should affect my credibility in research and beliefs. If I'm not wrong to believe the information in your biography, I also greatly respect your expertise in the field. So, if you have any relevant experiences or knowledge to share, I'd be more than happy to gain insights from your perspective as well.

On a light note, I did miss out on the modern prescription frequency of some drugs (e.g., hydralazine and procainamide). I have updated the article with that information. Thank you for pointing that out :)