Talk:Tremelimumab

Pharmacology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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 Tremelimumab.

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

NSCLC trial results Feb 2016

ASTRAZENECA’S COMBINATION OF DURVALUMAB WITH TREMELIMUMAB SHOWS CLINICAL ACTIVITY IN NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER IRRESPECTIVE OF PD-L1 STATUS. Phase III trials ongoing. - Rod57 (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As reported at [1], this is a phase Ib study (study 006), which means it's an early exploratory study. According to the content guideline WP:MEDRS, unless there is a particular reason for an exception, this report is completely and utterly irrelevant in this encyclopedic concept space, until further information develops. By convention, people are free to put whatever preliminary speculations or outright rubbish they want on Talk pages. Other editors are then free to come along and criticize the embarassingly poetic fancy of placing premature, naive, buzzing gossip here. This response denounces without reservation this wobbly reference as a (presumably unintentional) bewilderingly misguided promotion of a particular commercial confection, which has not been adequately tested. As a relevant comparative benchmark, there are several approved medications within the immunotherapy concept space, making this reference all the more flagrantly speculative and contextually unscrupulous. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]