this article reads like PR. it should be revised to reflect the standards of a respectable encyclopedia.

Yes, it's pretty poor right now. I've tried to do a little of this and I'll try to remember to come back and do some more. In the meantime, I've flagged it as having an advert-like tone (though it reads more like a press release to a medical journal) and perhaps another editor will come by with some improvments of their own. Astronaut (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Infobox edit

Can someone explain why various editors thought it necessary to create {{Advaxis}}, {{Infobox advaxis}} and {{Infobox Advaxis}} when the standard {{infobox company}} is more than adaquate for the job? Astronaut (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Advaxis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is axalimogene filolisbac the same as ADXS-HPV edit

[1] says "FDA halts Advaxis Phase 1/2 study of axalimogene filolisbac after patient death" - Is it the ADXS-HPV in the WP article ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply