Talk:Sipuleucel-T/Archive 1

Revising

This article sounds more like a drug advertisement than an article. I will be revising it shortly. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume you will change the name of the article from Provenge to sipuleucel-T. --Nbauman (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the term CRPC and AIPC because they are both used by other medical professionals (even in the article being quoted). I will be adding other info regarding the medical names for this new vaccine process.

All should be aware that some Serious Criminal Activity took place in blocking this vaccine. http://ur.lc/663 http://www.deepcapture.com/michael-milken-60000-deaths-and-the-story-of-dendreon-chapter-12-of-15/ Bgordski (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC) All should be aware of the resistance to any new paradigm that might actually cure cancer. Yearly costs of cancer treatments are $60 billion. Since 1972 NIH (NCI) has spent $200 billion on cancer research as of 2009. Many will defend these costs and want to keep more $ coming. Why we are losing the war on cancer? We developed the Atomic Bomb, Walked Men on the Moon and Decoded the Human Genome but no cure for cancer. See this for several reasons why: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/03/22/365076/index.htm What we have is a perpetual funding organization that secures jobs for the researchers and staff while publishing 1.5 million papers and curing 100,000 mice. Mice physiology is very different then humans so treatments that work on mice fail in human clinical trials. You will see many of the folks whose livelihood depends on cancer research finding excuses for more funding and more status quo and damning anything that reeks of success. Wikiquote:Upton Sinclair "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Here is Dr Mitchell Gold MD (Urologist), CEO Dendron, interview with CNBC after a 2009 announcement of successful study results. Notice the "short" sales listed on the bottom of the screen. These are people (hedge funds?) that were suppressing the stock's price. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1092383569&play=1 Bgordski (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Please note that in the above interview Dr Gold mentions several other cancer vaccines, breast, colon and kidney that were under development. This is the other progress that Milken's cabal strangled when DNDN lost the ability to raise funds. (This is a part of the deepcapture article.) The breast cancer vaccine's name is Neuvenge not sure about the others. Bgordski (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is more general scientific ethics information from UofTexas http://cstep.cs.utep.edu/research/ezine/Ezine-TheUseandAbuseofScience.pdf Bgordski (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC) [[Bgordski (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)]] updated article and changed Category:cancer vaccine to therapeutic cancer vaccine also added Hepatitis A vaccine info with wiki reference. Clarified wording re:preventive vaccines "attacking" viruses.

Page move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Result: Moved by Shubinator ~~ GB fan ~~ 10:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Provenge → Sipuleucel-T — Per WP:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Drug_pages_to_use_INN, article about drugs should be named after the generic name (Sipuleucel-T) and not the trade name (Provenge). Boghog (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: As Boghog says, the generic name should be used. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: That's the WP:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#Drug_pages_to_use_INN proper style. --Nbauman (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit war started by nbauman

I hope someone here will discuss Nbauman beginning to edit my previous entry here so as to remove details that would be helpful for doctors and patients to have regarding the importance of this treatment's approval. It is in fact a breakthrough, first of its kind treatment, for advanced stage cancer that has validated the concept of a vaccine to train the patient's immune system to fight cancer. This has been a goal of cancer researchers for more than a century.

I wrote a fully documented entry to this effect and he came along and without discussing it with me beforehand eliminated all references to it being a breakthrough--in spite of many doctors being quoted in multiple sources to that effect--and eliminating important data from the article in the NEJM to the effect that the treatment effect of Provenge may be even greater than reported because the salvage treatment offered study subjects (frozen Provenge) needs to be studied to determine if it too provided a survival advantage. He then also included in his entry a critical quote from an editorial that questioned the NEJM trial results, without giving any context--i.e. that the quote was just that one writer's opinion.

I have repeatedly explained to him the significance of the data I am trying to provide to patients who consult Wikipedia, but he refuses to answer, to negotiate, to compromise--instead just substituting his entry which is very inaccurate and misleading--creating the impression that the results of the Provenge study are weak and questioned by the medical community, when in fact the results have been hailed as very strong and both ASCO and NCCN have almost immediately accepted Provenge as the new first-line treatment for these patients.

Patients considering going on Provenge NEED this information and Nbauman refuses to even justify denying them access to it.

Stating the truth that the treatment is revolutionary and a breakthrough does not make it "promotional"--the truth is the truth: experts have been quoted in verifiable, reliable sources that it is a revolutionary breakthrough treatment that could herald a whole new era in cancer treatment.

Why are readers not allowed to read that truthful information??

Please, let's have an intelligent discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulK (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI

SaulK has a blog which promotes Dendreon stock, http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/567205-saulk/86530-dendreon-update http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/567205-saulk/80819-lessons-in-biotech-dendreon-the-next-amgen and discloses that SaulK himself holds stock in Dendreon. -- Nbauman (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While it is true I own Dendreon stock the conflict of interest policy only requires that I maintain a neutral stance, which I have--and that my personal interest not be of greater importance to me than a truthful entry.

In fact I suspect Nbauman has an undisclosed coi since he/she so relentlessly is pursuing an inaccurate entry.

As to my blog, I have in fact written a few articles on Dendreon, but the blog itself is on biotech stocks and not limited to "promoting" Dendreon. Nbauman's statement is apparently intentionally misleading. Answer the question--what is your interest in limiting available info as to Provenge?

You continue to refuse to state your interest. Very suspect. SaulK (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Trials data

I've edited the page to add information from all three phase III trials for Sipuleucel-T/Provenge including references. On Time to Progression, the FDA themselves have conducted workshops on endpoints for prostate cancer trials and published a draft guidance on design for cancer vaccine trials. I added a discussion on why two of the three phase III trials missed TTP yet still showed statistical significance for Survival.

Ocyan 23:21, 24 August 2010

And I have reverted it. Ocyan and SaulK, both of you seem to be pushing an agenda. A (very) quick Google search came up with this: [1]. Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, and your edits are not neutral. Also, they're stepping far into WP:JARGON. For example, the vast majority of users do not want to see distribution stats; those that do should know to look elsewhere.

I will protect the article if the edits continue without further discussion here. Shubinator (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shubinator, everything that I wrote was objective and properly referenced by published articles. The statistics presented were taken from papers published in the Journal of Oncology and the New England Journal of Medicine, two of the world top research journals for the area. The statistics are important for readers to understand the efficacy results of the trials showing that Sipuleucel-T works. Could you please explain why you object to summarizing these results for Wikipedia readers?

Ocyan 00:35 25 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

1) The content you put into the article was almost incomprehensible to the average Wikipedia reader. 2) It has the style of a discussion of the topic. Wikipedia is a place for summarizing established facts agreed upon by 3rd-party sources and from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a discussion board where you can debate opinions. Based on the discussion on this page, WT:PHARM, and WP:EAR, the "facts" you're adding are highly disputed. If you want to present disputed facts, you must a) clearly note that they are disputed, and b) present the other position also.

I'm reverting your edit. Do not edit the article without further discussion here. Shubinator (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what facts you called "highly disputed". The Clinical Trials Data section were results taken from papers published in the JCO and NEJM so they were vetted by the top reviewers in the field. The statistics were for all three phase 3 trials instead of just from a single trial IMPACT as in your version. IMHO, by showing data from all three trials, readers will have a more balanced view, not less. Please explain your concerns?

Perhaps what you are concerned about is the discussion in the Time To Progression section? If you have any suggestion on how to improve it, that would be great.

Ocyan (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See point #1 to address your first paragraph. Note that we generally discourage primary sources, and we discourage showing raw data.

Suggestions for improvement (for all of your edits, not just that section): 1) Boil away the data and leave the neutral verifiable conclusions. Your parents/children should be able to understand what you write. 2) On your talk page you said "the presented information is important for readers who wish to know why Sipuleucel-T is an efficacious treatment". Also consider, and add, content that is important for readers who wish to know why they wouldn't want to be treated with Sipuleucel-T. Only when both sides of the coin are presented will the content be allowed in the article. Shubinator (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain how the current top paragraph of the Mechanism section "boil"ed away the data?

All I am doing is to add to that with data from the other phase 3 trials. The totality of these data is what was the basis for FDA approval. They complement what you wrote!

Your suggestion of why patients might not want Sipuleucel-T is good and I'll look into that.

Ocyan (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Shubinator -

This is a copy from my talk page but slightly edited. I am still learning how to use this forum and its etiquette as this is my first time posting on Wikipedia.

You warned me on my talk page that I have some sort of agenda and you may ban me forever. Please explain the basis for your assertion and about this threat?

What I am doing is to take my best effort to communicate some scientific information in a way as accurate as possible and as simple as possible. This is in the same spirit that I have seen from reading other Wikipedia pages with far more technical details about a variety of topics in different fields of science.

It is well known in drug development that the evidence for Sipuleucel-T or any drug must be obtained in either a very large randomized study or in more than one independent studies. For Sipuleucel-T, that evidence came in three phase-3 trials. As such, when you describe its efficacy, you need to collate information from all three trials to present a balanced view.

I am a scientist so what I write is always in the spirit that they must be as complete as possible and verifiable by others. In fact, I see much missing as well as misleading information on the current page. For example, if you talk to any practicing oncologist, they will tell you that if a survival benefit is seen, then the disease must have been stopped or slowed down in some way. Thus, the lack of evidence for progression must be examined carefully. And, that's what the discussion on Time to progression on my version of the page was about. In fact, your portrayal of the lack of evidence for "actually affecting the progression of cancer" and the conjecture of Dr. Longo was one-sided when, in fact, there is evidence for affecting progression as seen in the D9901 trial of Sipuleucel-T.

It is important that a public source of information such as Wikipedia should be as accurate and complete as we can help make it. Even if as an administrator you could simply ban me as you mentioned, you should at least read what I wrote carefully to incorporate the "factual information" there so that people who come to Wikipedia to seek information would not be misled.

Truly, I have no agenda but to see the facts about Sipuleucel-T be presented right.

Thanks for listening. Ocyan (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The top part of the current "Mechanism" section does indeed use data incorrectly.

My "threat" was not intended as such; it was a fact. Other admins, seeing the discussion board link at the top of the section, your and SaulK's edits, and your (mostly SaulK's) unwillingness to discuss the issue, could very well have decided to block both of you as disruptive single-purpose accounts.

Scientists tend to want as much data as possible, and add this data into Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia, however, encourages secondary sources that interpret the data so there's no question of the editor adding their own slant. Your comment that "the lack of evidence for progression must be examined carefully" is not quite correct; other people should do the examining, and Wikipedia should only show others' conclusions (hence the need for secondary sources).

I've found that newspaper articles make some of the best sources. They're written to be easily understandable and make their own conclusions. And (for the most part) they're neutral. I'd encourage you to find newspaper articles and pull conclusions from there instead of reaching your own conclusions.

Shubinator (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do use Wikipedia extensively for my research so I am on board with the idea that the information presented should be accessible to a large audience with different degrees of knowledge from just curiosity to casual to sophisticated.

Since this is my first attempt at contributing, it is unfair to classify me as a SPA. Also, I believe we have had productive discussions in the past two days from since I joined.

To move forward productively, I will try to do the following:

1. The current page is incomplete and inaccurate in a number of ways. I will revise to add further information but will try to be more in the Wikipedia spirit above.

2. Clinical trials data will necessarily be reduced to a few numbers that state the efficacy and safety issues in a quantifiable way, hence avoiding "opinions" that could be biased. Thus, I will summarize the data again but try to avoid acronyms that do not make sense to casual readers.

3. You've mentioned before that the preference for citations is secondary source. I will assume this to be avoiding quotes from Dendreon PRs as they are the original source of data for Sipuleucel-T. However, as the current page already quotes extensively from the NEJM, I will assume that publications in journals, newspapers, the FDA guidance documents, etc. are acceptable.

4. On discussion points such as about disease progression, the current page is biased toward a negative view of the data. I will provide information from other sources for a counterbalanced viewpoint.

Perhaps this is not how the Wikipedia editing process is normally done, but is there a way for all people interested in this to work together on a write-up so that it gets to some stage acceptable by all before publication? The publish/retract cycle that has been going on seems to be too much of a waste of time for everyone.

Please let me know if the above proposal is acceptable.

Ocyan (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a great proposal! Yes, Dendreon press releases are discouraged; if you do use one, it would have to be for an undisputed fact, like "Sipuleucel-T started Phase I clinical trials on <date>". Journals and FDA guidance documents are ok; I find that there's a strong temptation to come to unique conclusions with these types of sources, but as long as you're careful it's fine.

You can make a draft of the article in your userspace to work on, for example at User:Ocyan/Sipuleucel-T. Then later when everyone's ok with it we can port the changes to the live article.

There are a few pharmacology-related feature articles that will help you find the right balance in accessibility and sourcing, and are in general good examples to follow: Category:FA-Class pharmacology articles.

Shubinator (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this, Schubinator. I basically agree with everything you've said. -- Nbauman (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will put together something for everyone to preview before publishing. -- Ocyan (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Shubinator--I must say you seem very hostile and I don't understand it. Neither do I understand your reverting the most recent version of this entry without any discussion. I was blown away by how much better the recent version was than mine. The one you reverted to has much less information and parts that are slanted. I don't read anywhere that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write for children as I take you to be implying. In fact many adults wiki things first off--and I would hate to think a man who has been diagnosed with prostate cancer would come here and read your incomplete revert rather than the much more thorough treatment by Ocyan. Also he refers to you as an administrator--that's not right is it? All editors are equal here and we are supposed to discuss to try to reach a consensus, isn't that right? SaulK (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I also would like to add that just because I own Dendreon stock and post to a stock message board does not mean that my efforts here to have an accurate entry are a conflict of interests. The writers most qualified to explain a subject are those who know that subject best. I have studied the science behind Sipuleucel-T for years and am intimate with it. I am not just an investor, but also an advocate for prostate cancer sufferers and have known many--including family members. I think it is insulting that you assume that just because I invest in Dendreon I would try to have an inaccurate entry. You should stick to explaining what, if anything, is wrong with the entry as written, rather than trying and convicting me of bias without any evidence. SaulK (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Better" is subjective. The version that I reverted did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. Also, that content was added after I posted a warning here that further disputed edits would result in the article being protected.

You're misinterpreting my words. No, Wikipedia is not specifically targeted to children, but it should be understandable to the widest possible audience. See WP:JARGON.

You're right, we are supposed to discuss to reach a consensus. As you did not. Multiple times. And that's when administrators step in to block disruptive editor(s) and/or protect the article.

Actually, what you describe is almost the definition of a conflict of interest (as it's defined in the Wikipedia community). Also, keep in mind that inaccurate and biased are two separate things. I'm not saying your content is inaccurate, but that it's biased. As for "the writers most qualified to explain a subject are those who know that subject best": you're looking at this the wrong way. Wikipedia does not want editors to explain a subject. That implies coming to conclusions independent of the sources, and therefore original research. Wikipedia does want editors to compile conclusions that other sources reach into a single article. For example, the architect/engineer who designed, say, the Hoover Dam, would know the subject (the dam) very well. However, this person should not be writing the Wikipedia article on the dam.

I've made some suggestions for the article in the above section. I'd encourage you to look at both sides of the debate; in other words, you've spent a lot of effort explaining why Sipuleucel-T is an amazing drug; now you should research why it's terrible. Only then can we reach an unbiased neutral article.

Shubinator (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that last part reveals your own bias--namely a presumption that there is more information out there to support some thesis that Provenge is a terrible treatment. The article I have attempted to post sets out that a reviewer has questioned the data in the NEJM and suggested there may have been an unrealized imbalance in the groups studied. It also sets out the $93,000 price, which some have criticized as too high. Yet your slanted thinking on what would be a "neutral" article is keeping valid, verifiable 3rd party information from readers--apparently because of your bias that the good news about the Provenge breakthrough in cancer treatment "must be too good to be true". You recommend to Ocyan that he look for newspapers as sources, yet when I posted an entry supported by an AP story on Provenge the day it was approved by the FDA that quoted a doctor saying the treatment represented a "breakthrough" in cancer therapy another editor, apparently with your approval came along and delted the reference based on his own opinion that it was not a breakthrough and that 4.1 months survival advantage was not "significant", even though I had a separate verifiable quote that it was significant in a cancer expert's opinion.:FDA approves breakthrough cancer therapy Provenge April 29, 2010 (AP) -- A first-of-a-kind prostate cancer treatment that uses the body's immune system to fight the disease received federal approval Thursday, offering an important alternative to more intensive treatments like chemotherapy.

Ads by Google Prostate Cancer Treatment - ProstRcision offers the highest documented 10-year cure rate. - www.ProstRcision.com

Dendreon Corp.'s Provenge vaccine trains the immune system to fight tumors. It's called a "vaccine" even though it treats disease rather than prevents it.

Doctors have been trying to develop such a therapy for decades, and Provenge is the first to win approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

"The big news here is that this is the first immunotherapy to win approval, and I suspect within five to ten years immunotherapies will be a big part of cancer therapy in general," said Dr. Phil Kantoff, an oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who helped run the studies of Provenge..."

I am not trying to do anything more than follow your rules and post a truthful entry. Why aren't you willing to critically evaluate the reverts performed by Nbauman without first discussing them with me? He has admitted he doesn't even understand the significance of the NEJM suggestion for further study of the effects of frozen Provenge on the survival advantage in the placebo group. It is apparent he also does not understand the distinction between "median" and "mean" since he reverted the article to a version that referred to "average life extension of about 4 months"--which totally misleads since by the definition of "median" half the men had their lives extended by more than 4.1 months and the study never calculated an average life extension. In fact the study data in the NEJM shows that many men lived extra years.

Lastly, I have not been interpreting the information, as you suggest, only reporting what verifiable, reliable sources have said about it. When I said those who know the science best should write about it I was not suggesting ANY personal knowledge whatsoever. I'm not a scientist who has worked on Provenge. I'm a lawyer who knows biotech by reading about subjects I am interested in. It's all from secondary sources--which is what you say you want. SaulK (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm biased because I strive for neutrality and would like to see both sides of an argument? You've got interesting logic.

The $93,000 price is in the article currently. I removed the information about various study groups mainly because it was WP:JARGON. Please read that page before replying.

The text from the AP source doesn't mention significance or "breakthrough", so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

Let's make a couple of things clear. I didn't write any of the article. And I haven't "approved" the actions of previous editors. Don't try to shift attention from yourself to other editors like Nbauman.

Now that that's straightened out, "breakthrough" is a WP:PEACOCK word, which we generally avoid. It's unencyclopedic and doesn't help in creating a neutral article.

There are a few phrases that suggest you're coming to conclusions on your own, for example "While this is suggestive of a greater treatment effect than that demonstrated by the top-line results".

Again, the main reasons I reverted: 1) WP:JARGON 2) Not neutral 3) original research.

Shubinator (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think my logic is interesting? I don't think so--you've just done it again: striving for neutrality is inconsistent with an assumption that there are in fact two sides to every argument. To take an extreme example, if someone was writing on the "philosophy" of Nazism would you require them to give the Nazi side of things? It is possible that there is only one reasonable side and if you are going to protect the Provenge entry until someone comes up with resons why patients should decide not to take Provenge the article is never going to be open to further editing, since there are no such reasons--it is a paradigm shifting new technology which results in the largest survival advantage ever in late stage prostate cancer and has very minimal side effects, especially compared to the only other FDA approved treatment, Taxotere, which 50% of patients refuse because of its side effects--one of which is death.

Sorry to hear "breakthrough" is such an "unencyclopedic" word that it can't be quoted. I guess there are no encyclopediae anywhere reporting that the discovery of penicillin was a "breakthrough" in medicine.

And heaven forbid I shift the attention from my accurate entry attempt to that of an editor you are so vigorously defending who doesn't know "mean" from "median". You haven't commented on his/her reverting without comment or discussion.

Do you also think subtracting 11.6 from 25.8 and getting 14.2 is original research?

It's pretty obvious you are not even considering what I am writing to you and that your mind is made up to prevent an accurate, complete entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaulK (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.psa-rising.com/med/immun/provenge-05.htm

http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/fda-approves-dendreons-breakthrough-cancer-vaccine-provenge/2010-04-29

http://blog.cancerresearch.org/jill/provenge/

Breakthrough, paradigm shift, significant--too bad no one is allowed to quote these sources. Hope you feel very mighty. And that no men miss out on Provenge because you supress the story. SaulK (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I would like such an article to describe the Nazi side of things.

The picture isn't as rosy as you make it out to be; there are two sides to this argument. Take a look at these articles: "One unusual aspect of the treatment that has generated controversy is the fact that the vaccine doesn't shrink the tumor ... in most patients. ... 'A lot of patients have trouble dealing with this psychologically'"; "it's not a home run"; "promotional materials ... are 'false or misleading'"; "concerns about reimbursement and the company's ability to provide an adequate supply of the drug".

If you truly care for an better Wikipedia article on Sipuleucel-T, you'd realize that pointing fingers isn't going to get you anywhere. If it's "obvious" that I want to "prevent an accurate, complete entry", why am I helping you and Ocyan in the section above?

Shubinator (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The links you provide are pretty ironic: One part of the entry by Ocyan that you deleted dealt with the "controversy" over the failure to shrink tumors--in a very balanced way I might add. As to "not a home run" another earlier entry of mine that Nbauman deleted tried to provide information on this subject--in fact researchers have been quoted as being very hopeful that Provenge given in earlier stage disease might prove to cure men with healthier immune systems to start. The Impact study only enrolled men with late stage disease and very compromised immune systems--since Provenge works by stimulating an immune response, there is great hope that in earlier stages it will be even more effective. The quote about "false and misleading" refers to some brochures that failed to give the confidence interval of the Impact study's p value--minor, routine, easily corrected infraction. New brochures will be supplied. Last, concerns about adequate supply exist only because there is such massive demand for the treatment; because Provenge is so good and is so desired by patients who are dying, the company is having to work hard to meet the demand.

You say you want the "other side", but when someone provides it Nbauman or you come along and deletes it. Square that for me.

SaulK (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said many times, it was a combination of multiple issues that led me to revert. I also notice that you seem to be retreating on your claim that the drug doesn't have any flaws. Feel free to help with the draft in Ocyan's userspace. Shubinator (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if it's a retreat or not--I don't think I ever said the drug had no flaws, only that it's a breakthrough and that the interested public should be allowed to hear that. It is not a cure in late stage disease--but it might be the first step in getting to a cure in earlier stage disease. Don't you agree that a potential first step towards curing cancer by a new, less toxic method is a big deal? It is true that scientists have been trying for decades to train the immune system to recognize cancer as foreign and attack it. The scientists at Dendreon have succeeded and I really believe you will see the group receive a Nobel in medicine down the road.

In any event, I am sorry this discussion has gotten to have a flavor of the personal--I do see that you are working in good faith with Ocyan, and I respect you for that. Part of my earlier frustration was that editors who did not understand the subject matter were unilaterally reverting without any discussion. I believe the draft on Ocyan's page is very close to a comprehensive, informative, and unbiased entry. Thanks for helping with that and I apologize for any rancor. SaulK (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You could add material explaining how the drug is unique (with citations of course) and let the readers come to their own conclusions.

I'm glad we could come to an understanding and move forward with improving the article. You and Ocyan have the potential to bring the article's quality up a few notches; you could shoot for WP:Good article status.

Shubinator (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft Sipuleucel-T page in User:Ocyan

All interested parties: Please read and comment. Thank you. Ocyan (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a housekeeping item, it would be better as a subpage of your userpage instead of your userpage itself.

The content is good. We try to avoid block quotes, so it would be great if you could paraphrase the quotes in the tumor progression section. One minor point: the citations in the clinical trial data section would be better at the end of each paragraph instead of the beginning. Also, not sure if you planned to add it in later, but the "Costs" section seems to be missing. Shubinator (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - will incorporate them. Could you tell me the incantations to make a subpage? Ocyan (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made the move for you; the page is now at User:Ocyan/Sipuleucel-T. For future reference, here's how you create a page: 1) put the desired title in the search bar in the top right and hit enter, then 2) click on "Start the <pagename> page". Shubinator (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Shubinator - Thanks for moving the page for me. All - I've reedited the progression section and added a cost section. Please reread and comment. Ocyan (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Shubinator-- I've added some comments/suggestions to Ocyan's discussion section on his draft's page in line with your suggestion above. Could you please read and give your thoughts? Thanks SaulK (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

All - I've reedited the Cost section to provide a counterpoint by David Miller to the high cost criticism from the NEJM. Please comment. Thanks. Ocyan (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. The costs section seems a bit too technical (or too wordy). For example, you can delete "it should be noted that" from the first sentence in the last paragraph. Also, it looks like you're overusing italics; for example, quotes shouldn't be italicized. Overall good work though. Shubinator (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft moved to the live article. For reference, the draft discussion page was User talk:Ocyan/Sipuleucel-T. Shubinator (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Progression section

Edited the awkward&wrong phrasing of the treatment instead of the trials that did not detect delay of progression. Ocyan (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)