Talk:Gardasil

Pharmacology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Reproductive High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Viruses High‑importance

	Viruses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Gardasil.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Archives

/Archive 1

Safety, ages tested

in the citation link provided I see no actual mention that "The vaccine was tested in thousands of females (ages 9 to 26)", moreover, that seems to contradict the info in the Clinical trials section. I didn't edit anything in case I'm just missing the mention in the link above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.107.137 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What ref is this specifically as I don't see it in the section you mention. Your statement is rather vague without more information. --Daffydavid (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Covid vaccines, only phase 1 participants - a few dozen people - got routine blood analysis consisting of a few dozen values each [1].

For phases 2 and 3, no such tests were performed [2].

This is why the risks of heart injury were underestimated by several orders of magnitude, as only clinically observed injuries were recorded [3, 4, 5, 6].

Given this, could anyone post links to the original safety analysis for the Gardasil versions, be it from the trials blood analysis or a follow up using insurance data of vaccinated vs. matched controls?

Sources:

[1] Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2639-4, Supplementary information: Redacted clinical trial protocol, 10.2. Appendix 2: Clinical Laboratory Tests.

[2] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728

[3] https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2687

[4] https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05438472

[5] https://www.kardiologie.org/myokarditis/esc-kongress-2022/herzbeteiligung-nach-boosterimpfung---wie-hoch-ist-die-inzidenz-/23446380

[6] https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.vaccine.2022.07.007

Diane Harper

Accoding to this article Diane Harper did not develop Cervarix, buyt worked on trials. She also claims to have been misquoted. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated source--Nutriveg (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huffpost is not a reliable source on antivax issues. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Although there are ligitimate doubts as to Huffpost's reliability, the above link is to an interview, and it can be presumed that Dr. Harper is quoted accurately. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum We should remove the word 'lead', since although she helped run clinical trials, she was not otherwise involved in the creation of the vaccine. BTW here's the article in which she claims that a newspaper misquoted her. --DanielKegel(talk) 14:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Can we get someone to comment on and address each of the concerns raised in the article at [1] . This article is making the rounds on facebook and many are taking it at face value. I was hoping that the wikipedia page would be a resource I could use to help establish the truthiness of what is stated in the article. The comments that she "claims to have been misquoted" don't really address all the claims in this article, and none of this is making it from the talk page to the face of the article. 173.164.190.165 (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have a resolution here please? In the Wikipedia entry of Harper it states that she worked on the trials, not the development. Themoother (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New addition on risks to low-risk of CC population sourced to editorial

This edit is sourced to an editorial in JAMA. I reworded it a bit, otherwise left it in place. If anyone objects to the sourcing, feel free to remove it. Although I do think it's not a controversial opinion on the subject, I'm still not sure if an editorial is good enough sourcing (though still in a reliable journal) for a medical article. Opinions? Auntie E. (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible issues related to mention of aluminium

The passage It should be noted, however, that the vaccine contains aluminum (as amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate adjuvant). Aluminum is a toxin to humans that has been linked to a number of ailments (including but not limited to, colic, rickets, gastrointestinal problems, interference with the metabolism of calcium, extreme nervousness, anemia, headaches, decreased liver and kidney function, memory loss, speech problems, softening of the bones, and muscle aches). looks odd - it makes no mention of the amount of aluminium, nor now it was was ingested. It looks like a general antiFurthermore, the link cited does not mention Gardasil at all. (It is, however, an alternative medicine site which makes me wonder if there may be a WP:RS issue also.) Autarch (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. It does not belong in the article, in addition to lacking reliable sources, it appears to be WP:OR. Removed. Zodon (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrgh - aluminum myth rearing its head again - bunkum!!!

I'll even give you one quick FDA link: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

"Aluminum salts are incorporated into some vaccine formulations as an adjuvant to enhance the immune response in the vaccinated individual. The aluminum salts in some U.S. licensed vaccines are aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, alum (potassium aluminum sulfate), or mixed aluminum salts. For example: aluminum salts are used in DTaP vaccines, the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, and hepatitis B vaccines.

Aluminum adjuvant containing vaccines have a demonstrated safety profile of over six decades of use and have only uncommonly been associated with severe local reactions. Of note, the most common source of exposure to aluminum is from eating food or drinking water."

There's more on the FDA site - put this one to rest - aluminum is safe - looks like the original poster already has a hat made of tin foil... :-) Thomas (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks violate Wikipedia rules 2600:8801:1:8600:1C1C:76AA:FE7E:A58C (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the controversy

I'm restoring the link which was deleted which is referenced by a RS news account on why Gardasil is controversial. The comment was "lower quality source than those already present". I think "quality" is not the judgment called for here. Many news accounts reference the Family Research Council as an advocate for parental rights in this case. Of course, there are approximately 60 other links but which one(s) besides the deleted one is mentioned in news accounts as influential among non-medical audiences in explaining the controversy?

If there are other advocacy groups which get mentioned in media accounts, let them be linked as well. This is all covered by WP:NPOV. If you want to declare the linked PDF to be WP:FRINGE, that's another matter. patsw (talk) 12:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected?

Why is this article protected and yet there's no infobanner about it on the discussion page and no logo in the upper right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.176.26 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dnaindia link

Editors have been adding a link to DNA India to indicate that a trial was stopped due to deaths. I deleted it once but it has been re-added with a link that the editor feels supports this link. Unfortunately the NIH link merely indicates that the trial is suspended waiting approval by the Indian Gov't, it says nothing about why. I am getting an error message from Google when I try to search the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) website and all references on the web that I can find all use the DNA India piece as their source or even a verbatim copy of it. If someone can find the actual ICMR report then this info is probably valid, without it the material is not from RS. Daffydavid (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FRC mention

Does the Family Research Council actually count as conservative? Just wondering about that portayal, since, in most Western countries, it would not... Also considering its hate group designation by the SPLC. 68.227.169.59 (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Harper

It is stated that Diane Harper was a lead researcher for Gardasil. This is incorrect. It also makes it sound like she was responsible for developing the drug. She was not. She was only part of the trials process which came after development. Themoother (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an ongoing debate at several pages. Themoother could you provide a link to this information? Thanks --05:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Route of administration

Currently, it says that route of administration is by "injection". This is very vague. Does this mean a subcutaneous, intramuscular or IV injection? Or somewhere else? Please clarify this! 222.154.167.3 (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intradermal, but since this is how all vaccination injections are given it doesn't seem vague.--Daffydavid (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for adding the clarification. WP is for everybody and not everybody knows that. Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most vaccine injections are *not* intradermal. 70.24.191.86 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Gardasil 9 vaccine

The FDA has just approved Gardasil-9, which protects against nine strains of HPV (as opposed to four). The article should be updated with this information. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm426485.htm Muzilon (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph needs to be re-written now that the 9-valent vaccine is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.86.238 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has this Gardasil 9 vaccine been shown safe and beneficial for people who have already taken the old Gardasil 4? What about safety for older people, like 40 years of age?

91.155.24.127 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be a separate article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.165.93 (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading claim

“As of 2014, the mortality rate from cervical cancer has dropped 50% from 1975 which is due to the Gardasil vaccination along with increased focus on cervical screening.” - this leads to believe that Gardasil is primarily the reason for the drop in mortality, yet when you read the cited material it becomes clear that screening is first and foremost the reason for the drop. 188.97.185.238 (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]