Talk:Essure

message: Need to clarify whether these refer to getting it inserted or are on-going risks. So, for example, when "Vasovagal response" is listed as a risk, is that a risk only during the procedure being done, and if you don't get it while it's being done, or whether there is additionally, a risk of getting such an effect not just during/right after the procedure but days or months or years later.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harel (talk • contribs) 01:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to Clarify Risks section

message: Noticed a TV ad for the first time tonite. Is that new? I think they mentioned 5 years experience; did they recently finish a long-term study that provides a new marketing-strategy option? If verifiable, such changes of status seem to me appropriate for inclusion.   --Jerzy•t 01:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: I don't know enough about this but it looks like the page has been edited to include strange remarks about carcinogens and what appear to be uncited statements about the product's safety (or lack thereof).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.224.66 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page sabotaged? 

message: Not sure this is exactly true. From the "Risk" section:
"The U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) Contracting Center North Atlantic, located at MCAA NA Bldg T20, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20307-5000 has announced its plan to procure 'ESSURE' Permanent Birth Control devices, using Taxpayer money, to permanently sterilize Female Military Service-persons and their Spouses. It is announced under Solicitation Number: W91YTZ-15-T-0044 (https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USA/MEDCOM/DADA15/W91YTZ-15-T-0044/listing.html)."
This section and/or citation either need clarification or to be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bear77 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced Sterilization of Military Officers under "Risk" Section 

message: This long indiscriminate list of adverse events under "Risks" would seem to violate WP:MEDMOS: "a long list of side effects is largely useless without some idea of which are common or serious." 
I think most doctors agree that Essure has risks, such as those reported in the NEJM and BMJ articles -- of death, intractable pain, and unintended pregnancy. But I think we should limit the adverse effects to those reported in WP:MEDMOS sources. I realize that some doctors follow Facebook to find out adverse effects that aren't reported elsewhere, but Facebook isn't even a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Essure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612171119/http://www.essure.com/Home/Understanding/EssureConfirmationTest/tabid/187/Default.aspx to http://www.essure.com/Home/Understanding/EssureConfirmationTest/tabid/187/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified