Talk:Cervarix

message: I think Ceravarix deserves its own article. Just the section "Social issues" should be merged into HPV vaccine. —Remember the dot (t) 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: I think it is incorrect to say:  "This means that a woman who is already infected with HPV will not benefit from this treatment."
I think this is too generic,  as there is more than one strain of HPV. If a woman is infected with one strain of HPV, she may still benefit from the vaccination, as it may protect against the strains she is not infected with.
202.129.81.153 01:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the vaccines do help women who are already infected get rid of the infection.  It is right and proper that the phrase be removed. Darkfrog24 21:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no evidence that Cervarix or Gardasil are beneficial in protecting from or helping clear previous infections with the HPV types covered by the vaccine.  They may protect against future infections with other covered types.  Thus, Vaccinating women who are already infected with covered types is less effective and less cost-effective than vaccinating those who have not been infected.  Zodon (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer Vaccine Indication: not just for young women 

message: At this point the claim that UK based their selection of Cervarix over Gardasil on relative duration of protection appears to be speculation.  It contradicts the one source that covers this topic in the article.  Please provide sources to support the claim if you want to add it.  (Evidence is lacking both that Cervarix provides longer protection, and the claim that in this specific case that was a consideration).  Thanks. Zodon (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis of UK selection of Cervarix over Gardasil 

message: This reference has been removed from the main text, where it was placed inside the first passage of the article. "controversial http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8279855.stm".
The reference does not qualify the characterisation that the vaccine is controversial. The vaccine has been introduced in many countries with highly developed health care systems. It can a subject of discussion whether or not the vaccine is controversial, but I find it hard to believe that this should be highlighted in the first passage in the article. Lipothymia (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial?

message: A girl who was vaccinated against cervical cancer died from a malignant tumour and not from a reaction to the jab, it has been revealed. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8284517.stm) 60.49.111.200 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because kids fall over dead all the time from undiagnosed chest tumors.  I have a bridge to sell you.  98.192.200.202 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, kids don't fall over dead all the time from undiagnosed chest tumors, but a lot of kids get vaccines, and at least one of them had an undiagnosed chest tumor.Keepstherainoff (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Cancer jab girl 'died of tumour' 

message: Done --ANowlin: talk 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --ANowlin: talk 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  I made a minor edit to move the content to indications vs. contraindications.   Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed updates to "Indications" section 

message: I rearranged the sections of the article to make them more closely match WP:MEDMOS in September 2010.  I am not sure whether the best place for the licensing section is down at the end (as the legal section in MEDMOS), or whether it was better up in the history.  (Since most of it is history of when it was licensed where).  Opinions?  Zodon (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranged sections 

message: to be effective 7.3 years
the section is mislabeled. efficacy should be telling us "the reduction in the incidence of a disease among people who have received a vaccine compared to the incidence in unvaccinated people." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_efficacy
instead what is written is telling us about long those effects last which is not efficacy.
Note the CDC has some actual efficacy info: http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-vaccine-hcp.htm
§TE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.216.147 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cervarix. 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/20110203035929/http://www.cervarix.com/ to http://www.cervarix.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711132145/http://www.cervicalcancer.gsk.com/ to http://www.cervicalcancer.gsk.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060819080038/http://www.gsk.com:80/investors/presentations/2006/vaccines_06042006.pdf to http://www.gsk.com/investors/presentations/2006/vaccines_06042006.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cervarix. 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/20091019132651/http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2009/2009_pressrelease_10112.htm to http://www.gsk.com/media/pressreleases/2009/2009_pressrelease_10112.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gsk.com/investors/presentations/2006/vaccines_06042006.pdf
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) 08:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified