Talk:Sanofi Pasteur

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sanofi Pasteur. 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/20121021215237/http://www.who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF99/www9943.pdf to http://www.who.int/vaccines-documents/DocsPDF99/www9943.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) 03:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for editor assistance
I am an employee of Sanofi S.A., and I would like to ask for a Wikipedia volunteer's attention to the final sentence of the section Sanofi_Pasteur. It currently states: "Since the announcement by Sanofi, at least 62 children have died, allegedly after receiving a vaccination. The victims' parents blamed the dengue vaccine for the deaths of their children." But the provided source (Google Translate) does not say this at all. It describes parent concern about the children who died despite receiving the vaccine, but does not include any figure and does not establish a known role between the vaccine and fatalities. This is currently a matter of governmental investigation, and most news articles do not include a figure. At this time, it is irresponsible to attribute any fatalities to the vaccine. From recent reports:


 * "[DOH Undersecretary Enrique] Domingo, however, clarified the DOH does not have any evidence yet whether or not the Dengvaxia vaccine itself influenced or even caused the deaths." --Rappler, May 22


 * "In his 31-page dissent, Drilon said that the Senate blue ribbon committee, Finance committee and Health and Demography committee did not find scientific evidence to support the conclusion that any of the reported deaths were connected to Dengvaxia, the anti-dengue shot developed by the French pharmaceutical firm Sanofi Pasteur." --The Philippine Star, April 19

I suggest to remove the sentence, or include a statement that the matter is under review, without identifying a figure. I will defer to editors judgment about what is best. Thanks for the consideration. Tlemagny (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wrote that paragraph as a summary of the main article Dengvaxia controversy. If you examine that article you'll find this citation:
 * It looks a fairly solid source to me and it's used in the related article, but I'll defer to others if there's a differing consensus on its validity. The citation in Tagalog to the Pilipino Star Ngayon was only intended to support the sentence about parents blaming the vaccine. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it looks like the source is on the mark, agree w/ RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks a fairly solid source to me and it's used in the related article, but I'll defer to others if there's a differing consensus on its validity. The citation in Tagalog to the Pilipino Star Ngayon was only intended to support the sentence about parents blaming the vaccine. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * it looks like the source is on the mark, agree w/ RexxS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response and clarification. However this claim has no source in this article. It also suggests to the reader the vaccine is responsible for the fatalities when this is only an allegation. This allegation is the only context provided.
 * Thank you for the response and clarification. However this claim has no source in this article. It also suggests to the reader the vaccine is responsible for the fatalities when this is only an allegation. This allegation is the only context provided.


 * Parents have lost their children and this is very serious, however this article does no service by failing to note that the claim of Dengvaxia's responsibility when tested has been refuted by the Philippine Department of Health. Thank you User:RexxS and User:Ozzie10aaaa for considering this again.


 * I recommend adding context, for instance the Department of Health (DOH) has found no link in cases it has examined and former DOH officials state the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) has caused panic:


 * "The Department of Health (DOH)-7 has clarified that of the four deaths recorded so far of children who received Dengvaxia shots in Cebu, not one had been caused by the anti-dengue vaccine ... DOH-7 Regional Director Dr. Jaime Bernadas said that all four died of different causes not related to Dengvaxia as he stressed that the health department’s immunization program has been proven safe and effective." --Cebu Daily News, March 7
 * "Former Health Secretary Janette Garin on Tuesday said that instead of helping the government and the public, the Public Attorney's Office is muddling the investigation on the Dengvaxia issue, resulting to panic and hysteria ... According to the UP-PGH panel, three of the 14 Dengvaxia-related cases exhibited “causal association”— two of them suspected to be caused by “vaccine failure.” Dr. Juliet Sio-Aguilar, head of the expert panel, explained that according to the World Health Organization, causality assessment “will or will not prove or disprove an association.”" --GMA News], February 27
 * "The Department of Health (DOH) slammed the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) for linking the death of a doctor in Quezon City to the use of the Dengvaxia anti-dengue vaccine without an autopsy." --Inquirer.net, April 25 Tlemagny (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You had stated in an earlier post that "This is currently a matter of governmental investigation" which implies that there is a current investigation ongoing at the moment. But one of the statements you quoted implied that whatever investigation there was, it had come to completion: "In his 31-page dissent, Drilon said that the Senate blue ribbon committee, Finance committee and Health and Demography committee did not find scientific evidence to support the conclusion that any of the reported deaths were connected to Dengvaxia.." The word "dissent" means "to hold or express opinions that are at variance with those officially expressed." To offer a dissent as part of a public hearing strongly suggests that three prerequisite events have already occurred: That leaves us with two contrasting narratives: First, that the investigation is ongoing ("This is currently a matter of governmental investigation"); second, that the investigation has run its course ("In his 31-page dissent.."). While it may be true that the investigation is ongoing or it may be true that the investigation has ended, it cannot both be true that the investigation is ongoing and has ended. One or the other must be the case here, and your edit request does not specify which. I believe that before a discussion can take place regarding which references are to be used here, we must first determine where these references came from and when (as information processed by sources at the end of investigations are usually more enlightened than information processed at the beginning of investigations). I think what would be helpful here would be the finished reports from the so called Senate blue ribbon committee, Finance committee and Health and Demography committees. Providing these reports as well as clarifying the status of any investigations held and/or continuing to be held would be greatly appreciated.  spintendo   09:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) There was a hearing or other form of public investigation held by authorities
 * 2) That those authorities, based on the information uncovered at the hearing, have deliberated and offered an official explanation/determination of what occurred based on a majority of views expressed by those tasked with making such determinations
 * 3) That members of the investigation who did not agree with the majority opinion, finding themselves in the minority, issued their own response to the investigation's official report as a dissent from the officially approved version.


 * - there is in fact more than one government body conducting reviews. These are the Public Attorney's Office (accusatory), and the Department of Health and Philippine General Hospital (urging caution). This is demonstrated in links from discussion earlier. In May, Philippine president Duterte has announced a three-person panel (The Philippine Star). But this panel does not need to conclude for the current wording to change. I propose the following to add to the end of the section:


 * Inquiries led by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) and Department of Health (DOH) have disagreed on the probable culpability of Dengvaxia. In May 2018, Rodrigo Duterte announced a three-person panel of experts would investigate the question.


 * I hope this seems a modest, reasonable change to make readers better aware of the state of the controversy currently. and  as well to help consider this addition. Tlemagny (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Was?
Two instances of "is" in the lead have been changed to "was". Edit summary on one of them: "Sanofi rebranding has eliminated names of pasteur,genzyme and aventis under one name only which is sanofi."

I'm reverting on these grounds: — Smjg (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Sanofi Pasteur website still refers to the business as Sanofi Pasteur.
 * Even if Sanofi have abolished the division names, this doesn't mean the divisions have ceased to exist. Unless we know otherwise, we should presume the divisions still exist in the corporate structure.
 * No time context has been given for the claim.
 * No source has been given for the claim.

this article NEEDS UPDATING.
the latest info is dated 2021 - and its Covid19 vaccination product is NOW (April/2023) being widely administered 147.147.180.240 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)