This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I believe that some information about HPV and Cervical Cancer rates in America should be mentioned clearly (such as the graph below). It is a popular belief that Cervical Cancer and HPV are one of the most common STDs and cancers in the United States.
The Center for Disease Control says that only 1.6% of the population has the four strains that Gardasil prevents (Strains 6, 11, 16, 18). "Overall, prevalence of types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was 1.3%, 0.1%, 1.5%, and 0.8%, respectively." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr56e312a1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.105.175 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Cervical Cancer isn't even in the top 10 most common cancers. In fact, it is classified as one of the "most rare cancers."
Lung and Bronchus Cancer 23.5%
Breast Cancer 16.9%
Other cancers 21.7%
Colon and Rectum Cancer 12.1%
Ovary Cancer 5.2%
Pancreas Cancer 5%
Lymphoma Cancer 4.4%
Leukemia 3.6%
Brain Cancer 2.3%
Mult. Myeloma Cancer 1.8%
-->Cervix Cancer 1.9%
Stomach Cancer 1.6%
A graph like this one would really be helpful and educational. Most people do not realize that they have more of a risk to get brain cancer (which can randomly strike anyone who is around vinyl chloride (a chemical in plastics) than they do getting cervical cancer. Most adults believe cervical cancer is just as common as Breast Cancer.
As stated in the helpful review article, "Who Invented the VLP Cervical Cancer Vaccines?" (PMID 16595773), the development of the current virus-like particle (VLP) vaccines was an incremental process involving research in several different research groups. For example, Ian Frazer (note Z not S) and colleagues' first report concerning VLP production concluded that the major capsid protein L1 cannot self-assemble to form VLPs (see abstract of PMID 1656586). This major error was corrected by other groups who were ultimately awarded patents for the VLP technologies. Attributing the invention of the vaccine exclusively to Ian Frazer is at best a half-truth and clearly isn't NPOV. Retroid 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a need to have a separate article for each brand of a medicinal product? If we have an article for every brand of drug on the market, the amount of articles will be tremendous. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge Gardasil and the other brand of HPV vaccine, Cervarix, into the article HPV Vaccine? Jkpjkp 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
While I can appreciate not wanting a page for all medicines on the market, it is possible that people who want to find information will only know the name of the medicine. If these articles are merged, will a search bring people to the appropriate page? 71.233.8.90 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
It's also important to note that unlike, say, ibuprofen, for which the generic is basically identical to brands like Advil, Cervarix and Gardasil are actually different chemical compounds (and Gardasil protects against strains of HPV that Cervarix does not), so they're not just different brands of the same chemical. 67.180.143.202 08:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe since Gardasil is so new, it should for the time being kept as a seperate listing because of the frequency of people that should be looking for specifically it, which is how i got to this page. I like the idea of every drug having their own page because as a medical professional I'm literally combing through those pages all day. Gardasil also should be kept in its own listing because of the perceived use and success rate expected from the drug, and it also will allow more thorough information to be listed on the single drug, like for example I need to innoculate a patient with the drug and found the innoculation regimen on Wikipedia, so yes I advocate leaving the article alone as well... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.18.2 (talk • contribs) merging policy issues (see also Talk:HPV vaccine#Merger proposal as in the merger proposal - Government & Public Health Mandates - does not seem reasonable to have coverage of policy in a product article, should be in the vaccine article --Jkpjkp 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In reviewing the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse reactions website) from Jan-July 2007, I see tha there are 1855 adverse reactions to Gardasil, out of 13,414 total listings (approx 14%). No wonder someone out there wants to merge/hide the Gardsasil information with the other brand...they have a lot to be embarrassed about. Do you work for Merck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.21.127 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The main concern I have with this article is it is so intensely one sided that it leaves me with the impression that I'm reading an advertisement for Gardasil and Merck & Co., Inc..Aaron-was-here (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand this vaccine is new, but why is it restricted to young girls?? I am a young sexual assault survivor male at increased risk for HPV yet no doctor or clinic will administer the vaccine to me.
I hope it does not become discontinued like the Lyme disease vaccine (due to poor sales). Restricting a vaccine against a virus that infects 40 percent of the population makes absolutely no sense. This is a terrible way to introduce it to the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmthymllgn (talk • contribs) 6:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
To answer the question above, currently its use is retricted to adolescent women and young adults because that was the study group formed by the FDA at the time of the drug's clinical trials. I think in the long run Doctors will realize the drug is also beneficial to patients of both genders and upwards of 50 years of age who believe they may have recently contracted Genital Herpes, but as a full blown cure it probably will not have a similar therapeutic effect if the patient has been living with Herpes for some time. Unfortunately, the drug is restricted solely due to the study groups formed and evaluated by the FDA, and like most drugs will require time before a larger market is opened to it.
If it helps, this CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/02/02/cancer.vaccine.ap/index.html) mentions that Merck is currently testing the vaccine on "older women and boys." I think that the beginning, it seems like it was just going to be something to prevent cervical cancer, and therefore they only tested on women. But I'm sure have now realized that since HPV can cause genital warts in both sexes, that it would be a good idea to get the vaccine to work for everyone. Alabasterchinchilla 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
We’re supposed to have this thing in modern western culture called gender equality after all. — NRen2k5 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I know that I'm not supposed to post things about myself on Wikipedia and am not suggesting anyone do, but want to share this for those who do write/edit the article. I posted a blog wondering about adverse affects from this vaccine and now have about 200 comments most of which are stories of serious events occurring after vaccination which the patient (or patient's parent) believe are adverse affects of the vaccine...many of them seizures, fainting, ongoing limb twitching, soreness to the point of being unable to use/limited use of limbs, and severe skin disruptions. (Most are at http://www.kkrasnowwaterman.com/blog/tabid/2962/bid/1691/HPV-Vaccine-fainting-seizures-and-other-side-effects.aspx and the remainder are spread as comments to a few other blogs.) I'm not a medical professional, don't normally write about medical topics, and have no way to judge whether these are verifiable adverse affects. Since Wikipedia is a common source of information and so many of the people who've written in to my blog say they wish they had better understood the controversy over what the side effects are, I'm writing to request that someone create a more complete description of the list of alleged side effects and an explanation of (or link to one) who will research and how long it normally takes to decide what is truly being caused by the vaccine. Kkraz (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't there any mention of the reports filed involving seizures (some resulting in injury) following the vaccination? I would consider that an adverse reaction. There are two reports of Guillain-Barre Syndrome possibly related to the vaccine, neurological affects like temporary loss of vision, dizziness, and slurred speech. There are also reports about joint pains and fevers. None of this is mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.108.244.64 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
I added "in Uganda" at the top of the page for the first reference, and also added a link to a Guardian article about deaths. I wonder if they will mysteriously disappear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.36.148 (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we could stand to have a second section on the two controversies involved with this vaccine. The first is that parents object to its use on the idea that it will make their daughters more promiscuous. The second, mentioned in passing, is that MERCK currently has a monopoly on the vaccine and is lobbying for the states to make it mandatory. Many of the scientists who've said good things about the vaccine had research funded by MERCK. For all that I believe the parents are mistaken and the scientists telling the truth, it could stand a mention.
This article from the Washington Post might make a good source. It also adds Virginia to the list of states contemplating a requirement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/03/AR2007030301356.html Darkfrog24 17:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite a few people have died from this vaccine, why does this article make no mention of that?BenW (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This passage was misleading:
It implies that no other state has any vaccination requirements. I think it's common knowledge that many (if not most) U.S. states require immunizations against measles, mumps, rubella, etc.
I wonder how an error like this can stay undetected in an encyclopedia article so long (6 months).
I added changed it to say, "vaccinated against cervical cancer". [1] --Uncle Ed 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The above comment is patently False: The truth is there is NO law anywhere in the country that requires any vaccines.Although some claim there is.It is untrue.The vaccines they claim are the law are in fact simply a school policy ,and all you must do is tell them that you are exempt for whatever reason,and they are required to provide a waiver form.If they continue to claim it is law then you have grounds for legal action based on using a principle known as color of law.
Schlafly wrote:
Are there any other sources for this? --Uncle Ed 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
"It is worth mentioning that Rick Perry's former Chief of Staff is currently the head of Merck's Texas lobbying team, and that Perry recieved $6000 in campaign contributions from Merck. The high cost of Gardasil is to offset losses due to Vioxx settlements and an official-sounding recommendation by Perry would lead many to believe that vaccination in Texas is mandatory, thus creating a constant pool of customers for Merck and allowing them to regain their losses by Gardasil sales in Texas alone. Being a patent protected vaccine, Merck is Gardasil's sole producer."
An anonymous user left this. It's good stuff, but we need a source. I could see why Merck would raise Gardasil's price to offset Vioxx losses, but without a source it sounds like speculation. The same goes for the idea that a rec from Perry would make people think the vaccination was mandatory (which I'm fairly confident it is). And "patent-protected" needs a hyphen. Darkfrog24 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
While mentioning that we don't know the side effects of Gardasil is an excellent idea, the idea that these side effects would neccessarily affect all these women's descendants is a little excessive for a contribution with no source. Also, considering that the vaccine wouldn't alter these girls' ova, I can say with some confidence that it isn't true. I'll make some changes. Darkfrog24 00:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/health/10brfs-CANCERPROTEC_BRF.html?n=Top%2fNews%2fHealth%2fDiseases%2c%20Conditions%2c%20and%20Health%20Topics%2fHuman%20Papilloma%20Virus%20%28HPV%29 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/19/1944 Darkfrog24 21:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I read in the NY Times that South Dakota and Washington are both considering voluntary programs like New Hampshire's, but I don't want to add them to the chart until I know the current state of the legislation (in committee, House, etc.). Does anyone know where I might find a source? Darkfrog24 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure who the administrator is for this page, but 68.62.0.97 has deleted all the "External Links" and "References" from the page. --Justine4all 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States"
Cervical cancer isn't the second most common cause of cancer death in the U.S. (For the white population, it's No. 13.) The Washington Post article said it's the second most common cause of cancer death worldwide (because underdeveloped countries don't have good pap screening or surgery). But for Gardasil, the relevant reference is to the U.S. rate (because women in underdeveloped countries who can't get screening or surgery aren't going to get Gardasil either).
Cancer
Volume 107, Issue 8, Pages 1711-1742
Published Online: 6 Sep 2006
Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2003, featuring cancer among U.S. Hispanic/Latino populations
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112777119/main.html,ftx_abs#TBL7
Table 7. Age-adjusted Incidence Ratesa for the Top 15 Cancer Sitesb for each Sex by Race/Ethnicity in the Selected Areasc in the United States, 1999-2003
I'm not changing it now because of the comment in the article. Nbauman (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Those of us accustomed to reading medical literature recognise that it is almost a prerequisite in the opening paragraphs of any medical journal article to emphasise (if not exaggerate) the epidemiological importance of the subject of rest of the article. Nonetheless, misleading statements undermine the reliability of the rest of the piece, and so I concur that it is unhelpful and not honest to describe, to the Wiki audience, that cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. In Western women the cumulative lifetime incidence of cancer of the cervix is around 1 in 80, whereas the risk of breast cancer is around 1 in 11 and bowel cancer 1 in 23. Perhaps a dozen other cancers have a lifetime cumulative incidence greater than that of cancer of the cervix. That is not to understate the importance or value of this vaccine. The risk:benefit ratio of Gardasil is irrefutably and overwhelmingly positive. But the global medical profession has a history of spin-doctoring the data it gives patients on a particular issue with some Macchiavellian flavour i.e. the end (getting everyone vaccinated) justifies the means (overselling the benefits and underselling the risks of the vaccination). This simply serves to alienate and disillude those few members of the medical laity who can perceive the "spin"; hence the ascension of anti-immunisation lobbies. Cervical cancer is hugely important in terms of loss of QALYs, and because its prevention is so simple and expeditious in comparison to other cancers. We need not exaggerate its raw incidence in order to convince patients honestly of the value of immunising against it.Drpeachy (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Nbauman, I completely disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote. You exaggerate the length and the complexity of the first paragraph. By including the strains of HPV that are covered by the vaccine, we a noting that not all strains of HPV are covered by the vaccine, and at the same time acknowledging the strains which are covered are the most virulent. In addition, the fact that cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in developing countries is of the utmost relevance, particularly if we are going to make the usual Wikipedia effort to make the article global in scope. I cannot see how it would not belong in a prominent part of the article article. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've read in several places that one of the main uses for Gardasil will be in developing countries since access to annual screenings is severely limited.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article "Cervical Cancer" claims that this cancer is the FIFTH deadliest in women worldwide, citing the World Health Organisation's Fact sheet No. 297 from July 2008 (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/index.html). According to the WHO document, cervical cancer comes behind breast, lung, stomach and colorectal cancer.
Why doesn't the Gardasil entry cite a reputable source like that? Its reference is merely a Washington Post article about the Merck vaccine, not about cervical cancer in general, and it's not clear where the WP journalist (Andrew Bridges) got his information that cervical cancer is "the No. 2 cancer killer in women." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateeva (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Mateeva (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Vaccination with GARDASIL may not result in protection in all vaccine recipients." from here. So, what does this means? Is there any data on the percentage of the vaccines' ineffectiveness? Rosa 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is good, but I think it needs more information on takeup in countries other than the USA. I believe that it is commonly used in government funded compulsory vaccination programmes for teenage girls in some EU countries, but need to find more information about this. Also, there are press reports that the UK government chose rival vaccine Cervarix over Gardasil for its compulsory vaccination campaign in order to save money, despite the fact that Cervarix protects against fewer strains of HPV. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saluton (talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, I don't care if a secondary source says something that isn't true. The primary source, i.e.: The State of Alaska, clearly says where the funding for their vaccination program comes from...
Federal funding to boost Alaska’s vaccine program The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services announced today that an increase in federal funding will make it possible for all Alaska girls ages 9 through 18 to receive Gardasil ®, the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer, at no cost. This boost in federal aid will enable more Alaska girls to receive Gardasil.
It's very clear that Federal Funds (i.e.: Taxpayer Dollars) are being used to pay for this program. This isn't about some libertarian agenda, it's about the truth. The truth is clearly and correctly sourced (I don't think anyone would argue that a official State of Alaska press release is a bad source).
Can someone provide me with a reason as to why the source of funding for this program does *not* merit inclusion in the article, and, instead, a general "no-cost" or incorrect "free" statement should remain? TheUncleBob (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
So the vaccine uses virus-like particles to induce the body to produce antibodies for HPV. Does this definitely only protect against these four strains, or does it actually protect against any strain with a similar capsid? I am wondering if they only spent money on tests for these four strains, and so those are the only ones they can legally say it prevents, while it might prevent others, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.65.247 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this entry in Wikipedia dedicated Merck to do marketing and censorships? All entries seams to be deleted, pure vandalism! Entries seams to be deleted based on censorship... ? IDNaa (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC) ````
Why is Judicial Watch not a good source in the given context? JW has an entry in Wikipedia, as I pointed to. This is a generic question: Can JW not be used as source for what they do? For aluminum adjuvant under "safty": I had a link to aluminum. (I guess I did not get your point?)IDNaa (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Zodon; Thanks for BRD pointer.
I wrote that "Gardasil has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity" with a pointer to Merk's product information which has been published. You deleted this (27/10) with 'Gardasil was shown to STOP carcinogenesis'. Your source? IDNaa (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
None of your links contradict that Merck's own "Gardasil Product Monograph" (Which is included in the "external links" has this disclaimer "13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility: GARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity. This can also bee obtained from [8] which refer to article published in Lancet. What I also found is that there are evidents that Polysorbate 80 MSDS may be a carcinogenic, (cause cancer), as well as a mutagenic (birth defects). There are also info. in PubMed.Gov a service of the U.S. Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health related to the topic. For aluminum: CDC has a link [9] to Toxicological Profile for Aluminum. Question: Where should Merck's disclaimer be, if not under safty? And where to you want to have the vaccine's content written? tx,IDNaa (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
THe article states: In the UK HPV vaccines are already licensed for boys aged 9 to 15 and for females aged 9 to 26.[14] However, this reference does not support the cliam that the UK has licensed the vaccine for boys. Are there other references for this fact? Or should this line be removed from the article? EBMdoc (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The Health Ministry of Spain ordered a halt of the use of a batch of Gardasil. Use of batch NH52670 was suspended after health authorities in Valencia region reported on Feb. 6 that two girls had become ill after receiving the injection[1]
That's what was reported. A recall on a batch of vaccine is a fact. Wikipedia is about facts, from valid sources.
Health authorities in Valencia (Spain) reported on Feb. 6 that two girls had become ill after receiving the injection. Where would you add it to the article? FX (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Efforts to change what the source actually reported have been noted. Stick with the source, Wikipedia is not about your opinion of the matter. Use the talk page to discuss your objections. FX (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, your original research doesn't trump a valid source. The problem with the vaccine, or batch of vaccines, isn't known yet. Lets stick with the facts, and avoid trying to make wikipedia reflect your view. Thanks. FX (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
News reports today state Gardasil is being used again in Valencia region of Spain. The suspect batch is still recalled, and they are trying to figure out what is wrong with it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssHealthcareNews/idUSLG21940220090216
From the very limited report it seems two girls fell ill, in the same manner, right after receiving injections from the same batch of the drug. FX (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
February 09, 2009 07:30 AM Eastern Time NVIC Vaccine Risk Report Reveals More Serious Reaction Reports After Gardasil
Comparing serious adverse event reports to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil (HPV) and another vaccine for meningococcal (Menactra), the National Vaccine Information Center (www.NVIC.org) found that there are three to 30 times more serious health problems and deaths reported to VAERS after Gardasil vaccination.
I find it humorous, darkly humorous that some people want so much for Gardasil to be completely safe, that they try to ignore the VAERS reports, which are there to alert concerned parties that there might be a problem. Reporting systems are there to alert us to a possible bad batch of vaccine, a contamination problem, or other health risks. To completely deny and ignore the system, because of some irrational desire to believe that there can be no problem, is insanity.
It is as bad as those who want all vaccines to be dangerous. Both are as far from NPOV as you can get.FX (talk) 05:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
All that being said, I know damn well that if that link and info was added to the article, those who want Gardasil to not have any possible negative reporting about it, (you know who you are) would simply delete it. Which is why I put it here. FX (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Your original research is noted. Sadly, Wikipedia isn't interested in original research. If you have any sources for your original commentary, it would help improve the article to note them.
The NVIC report is online, and of course they used statistical data to form conclusions. http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/NVICGardasilvsMenactraVAERSReportFeb-2009u.aspx
The relative numbers are what the report reports, not total numbers. But, it might be a waste of time to try and explain it. If you have any other sources, (after all, you said there are a "fair number of analysis of VAERS data", please show us. Using your original research to delete sources and information, well, doesn't that seem against the guidelines here? FX (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
This is really ridiculous. Two certain users here keep not only deleting all changes that might be deemed negative to Merck and Gardasil, no matter how sourced they are, but also specifically write in language that the drug is not harmful. Apparently Judicial Watch, consumer rights advocates, and even critical medical surveys are not academic, but Merck's own internal research is. For whom do you really work? Don't be a coward, come out and say it. For whom do you work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.236.113 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is obvious that a few people have an agenda. Old problem on Wikipedia.
What to do when someone is trying to force their view on a Wikipedia article? Now that is another old problem.
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors
.
Obviously Merck doesn't want anything at all published that would cast even a shred of doubt on the safety issue. FX (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are a fair number of analyses[sic] of VAERS data of dubious merit, like the one above. Zodon
Your opinion that it is of dubious merit is noted, but it has no place here. Stick to NPOV. FX (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Menacta is adiministered[sic] in a single dose to either gender, whereas Gardasil is administered in 3 doses to girls only, there is no reason to expect that the number of doses administered would be similar. Zodon
Again, your original research is not a counter to a published source, please avoid pushing your agenda here. Thanks.FX (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
According to her website, Erin Brockovich is preparing to take on Merck about Gardasil.
http://www.brockovichblog.com/2008/08/gardasil.html
I wonder where that should go in the article?FX (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Attorney Tom Girardi and Erin Brockovich interviewed about Gardasil on Lawyer2Lawyer.
http://www.legaltalknetwork.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=334
http://www.legaline.com/lawsites_archive/2008_12_01_lawsites_archive.html
http://www.girardikeese.net/attorney_details.aspx?attorneyID=1 FX (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion does not matter. Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented. FX (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk pages are not for discussing users, or user opinions, but to improve an article. If you have a valid source for your information (objections) please provide it. Thanks.FX (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Thanks. FX (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the statement from Erin Brokovich's blog. The entry itself is dubious, though she would count, IMO, as an acceptable source. However, upon reading the entry, it's clear that her math is incorrect. Her entry reads "4/103 strains that cause 70%" of cervical cancer cases and somehow comes up with a "91% vulnerable" figure, which is unexplained. Gardasil vaccinates against 2 strains that cause 70% of cervical cancers, which would leave, if anything, individuals 30% "vulnerable" (which is already dubious considering that commonality of those other strains isn't factored in either). Additionally, with the other two strains comprising 90% of genital warts cases, I still fail to understand her math. Therefore, it's been removed. The second statement was removed because it uses POV terminology and has no accessible source, while the third statement has no source at all. Until sources can be provided, those statements have been removed (and would require retooling if readded, anyway).Luminum (talk) 22:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone remember when rBST was the gold standard, and "no link could be found between rBST and human health problems" in report after report? What changed that? It wasn't hard-hitting research by major universities and groups of scientists: it was journalism, blogs, and people's then unsubstantiated paranoia, which then led to that research. Is it possible to strike the right balance between informing the public of its own concern, and sourcing this article with reliable studies?
Right now, this page sounds like a Merck safety notice, not an up-to-date, aware, and all-knowing examination of the current state of what's going on. Wikipedia is where we bring reliable truth to the average person in an accessible way - but I think over reliance on funded research (no neutrality, nor usefulness here - effect may take decades to show up), and government reports (no foresight here) is crippling this article. It is useless to a concerned parent trying to research Gardisil to learn whether there might be, today or tomorrow, too high a chance that it's going to hurt their daughter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.5.18 (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
My concern about this article is that the "Safety" section is just matter of factly not truthful. It is claiming that there "are no major side effects". Additionally, I believe that the politics of Gardasil is a legitimate subject for inclusion into this article, or in an article to which this links. As it sits, to me, the article violates Wikipedia standards on several scores. It is certainly NOT a balanced article: it is perilously close to being fraudulent. I want to address this at a later time when I have more time to go into depth. But I do not intend for this just to sit here. Something must be altered about this article to keep it from violating Wiki standards.Lizmichael (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
from June 9 2009 FDA has orded Merck to extend the labeling of the vacine to include (in the Warnings and Precautions section alerts healthcare providers)that tonic-clonic (jerking) movements and seizure-like activity can occur after vacination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.32.178 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The following item was added to the history section recently.
It is unclear what the historical significance/importance of this is, so moved it here for discussion/improvement. The significance of the timing of the vaccine approval versus when a trial results were published is also unclear. In the United States it is quite common for drug makers to fund professional education programs. So why are these significant to the history of Gardasil? Zodon (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not see any activity on the talk page that indicates there is continued debate about the neutrality of this article.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)