Talk:Dendreon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stock Plunge[edit]

Dendreon's stock plunged today even after the news of the vaccine was out. [1]

Nasdaq refused to review the transaction and to let it stand even though it seems to be some sort of error. [2]

Is this worthy of a new section or at least mentioning? KJS77 01:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if there is an entry regarding electronic trading you could cite it but AFAIK the only error was that a bunch of amateurs showed up and the popup help from their brokers told them that stops insured a way to lock in profits. Of course, placing a number on your computer doesn't mean that you will find someone else who will pay what your target price and then stuff like this happens as each new market order executes. The only criteria for backing these out are things like "obvious errors" and while setting a stop that doesn't produce a profit may be a mistake it is not a mechanical error( typo etc). I guess the other problem I have is remembering this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. So, I end up with references to current time( "this recent event" etc) and other items of passing interest. I thought the development of their product was relevant historical fact of more than temporary interest as was the AUA presentation but still not sure what text to put around the citations...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Anyone list all the noteowrthy stuff about DNDN???[edit]

Couple of issues about selection bias- if you find a bunch of borderline stuff you can make a big deal out of it but there are a lot of interesting things that happened here.

Also, the perceived threats against cancer researchers is noteworthy within science but seems to come up in business quite often. Is there a page on "threats in science in business" on wiki? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Active Discussion[edit]

I flagged this as actively discussed but then realized the talk was going on over here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nerdseeksblonde

Hopefully everyone will migrate. I'm intending to revert to my edits which one other person had deleted en masse. Upon further discussion and research, it appears I should have marked the whole article as I now have and left out the editorial comments which provoked the original delete. Given the active discussion header warns the reader about various texts, my eariler text seems suitable.

The major concern, copy right violations often cited by the other participant simply did not seem to have any merit and can be edited in isolation without disturbing the larger article. No one unfamiliar with the material has yet shown up who is willing to read references and only a few people have contributed material recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with this page?[edit]

It looks like someone manually reverted my edits that someone else deleted en masse. While I am generally happy, there are a few things I did note, largely that the selection did miss a few notable things. That is, the earlier Dendreon patent related to "moderately well differentiated tumours" doesn't seem to appear. This is important to list in an UNBIASED summary of their IP especially because it may relate to FDA objections. The clinical data was confusing and MOA issues were a significant part of the discussion. In fact, Dendreon now has a patent related to natural killer cells possibly relevant to Provenge. While I can't add much opinion within OR constrtaints, there is a clear evolution in their MOA attitudes and this was relevant to the sections I was putting together.

So, if I can get the IP section back to where it was, the re-inclusion of the "moderately well differentiated tumour" patent along with the recent NK patent ( that starts to suggest the role of antigen independent processes ) should make an interesting LIST for READERS who wish to use the encyclopedia as a starting point for their own original researach. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it would probably help if you pointed to a specific diff from the history or something so that everyone knows what you're talking about.  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 04:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Presumably whoever made the edits knew what was going on. Last I looked, Shubinator was deleting everything without knowing the material and what is left is not real clear and generally company-favorable. While this does seem to be a success-story among a string of immunotherapy failures, that makes it all the more important for perspective to be available to the reader- this is accomplished with a rich set of facts properly qualified and attributed, not a list of supportive facts stated with inappropriate confidence. The edit history doesnt look like anyone did much lately. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who Cares??![edit]

why is this article so long? Dendreon is a relatively insignificant company developing an interesting product line and could be considered notable because of the nature of their products. But come on. This article is twice as long as those for either Amgen or Genentech, companies roughly in the same space, but infinitely more notable. This article seems to have been written or heavily edited by an insider, which is not bad on the face of it, but perhaps that person is more impressed with the Provenge story than that story is worth. I would cut it down to a description of the company, pipeline, brief outline of the technology with links to other Wiki articles on immunology and cancer, then maybe a paragraph on the regulatory history of Provenge. Cut the article down to about 30% of its current length. The IP section could easily go. If I want to know what patents a company has, Wikipedia is the last place I would look.Desoto10 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a page about reasoning that "other stuff exists" or " other crap exists." Maybe the DNA and AMGN pages should be longer or more pages created. I tried to make this article even longer and was hoping for a content-knowledgable person to edit largely to document or edit my original research as I'd been following them for a while. Depending on what is left in the article, you can see a lot of interesting stuff about the FDA protests, the issues with trials, MOA issues, etc. Personally I'm interested now in seeing how this really works or if in fact as the FDA panel suggestes the placebo could be causing harm to patients. Immunotherapy has been tried in many formss for quite a while, there are some "firsts" here like IIRC first PHause III that seemed to work etc ( I am not big on these types of records but it may be in aricle and Mitch was making some comments along these lines LOL) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI[edit]

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) 14:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I saw this COI back when he posted to my talk page as an IP. Unless I'm mistaken, all of his Dendreon edits have been reverted...could you provide diffs showing info he added that's still in the article? Shubinator (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dendreon/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

ok, which dendreonite wrote the Dendreon page as a summary of regulatory

and stock action with only incidental and inaccurate treatment of its product candidates?

I'm not sure what the status of this page, with the business classification etc, but if I get a chance I'll throw more citations and discussion into the product section. The passing treatment of provenge really needs to be fixed- this is where the interest is ( well, we'll see what happens at AUA meeting Tuesday).

Thoughts anyone?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 13:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dendreon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dendreon&oldid=1201450707"