Talk:Gefitinib

message: For the record:
=== Regarding Gefitinib ===
No matter how trivial the change, you should always watch WP:3RR. Please don't violate it on something as trivial as a link, rather wait for consensus and then make changes. Thank you! Sasquatcht|c 21:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus? With a pushy anon who wants to push his AstraZeneca stocks? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from my talkpage. I will discuss the issue on Joaquin's talkpage, as this is not pertaining to the article but to user conduct. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Noted. See you talk. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More Rude Comments

message: No matter how trivial the change, you should always watch WP:3RR. Please don't violate it on something as trivial as a link, rather wait for consensus and then make changes. Thank you! Sasquatcht|c 21:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus? With a pushy anon who wants to push his AstraZeneca stocks? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is from my talkpage. I will discuss the issue on Joaquin's talkpage, as this is not pertaining to the article but to user conduct. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding [[Gefitinib]] 

message: * I don't own the stock. I don't own Astra Zeneca
* Jfdwolff opined that the Press Release from Asrtra Zeneca was a good substitute for the WSJ article. I did not accuse him of pushing the stock. 
* I am not a physician, I am a patient.
* Patients need access to the WSJ article. 
* Does the three reverts rule apply to everyone?
* We have spent more bandwith discussing this than the link, so what is the harm in including it? Joaquin Murietta 00:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Noted. See you talk. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About Me

message: This article from this week's Lancet makes it unlikely gefitinib has much of a feature. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet 

message: Some comments to consider from someone who unfortunately does not have the time to participate in Wiki as much as I'd like. There are several genetic biomarkers being researched to help identify those patients that will or will not respond to geftinib and erlotinib. These are EGFR amplification, EGFR mutations and KRAS mutations. If these are ready or not for clinical use is a matter of opinion and debate. There are a number of companies offering genetic testing for all of these genetic biomarkers. To focus on one company (Genzyme) when there are others, e.g. Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp, CARISDx, ResponseDx, PhenoPath and ARUP Laboratories, is a bias that ought to be corrected. --Leapy99 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Comments 

message: I believe "The target protein (EGFR) is a family of receptors" should be "The target protein (EGFR) is a member of a family of receptors"; I think erbB1 is EGFR while erbB2 & erbB3 are different receptors (but check this before making any changes).
Minor wording problems - Clinical uses - "As at August 2012" should be "As of August 2012".
"In 2014 in the TRANSCOG study (Petty et al.), demonstrated..." is ungrammatical. I suggest deleting the word "in" & the comma.
Studies - "longer for Gefitinib than chemotherapy" - gefitinib is chemotherapy; I suggest "standard chemotherapy".
69.72.92.34 (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  various problems