Talk:GlaxoSmithKline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
GlaxoSmithKline is part of the WikiProject Philadelphia, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] POV
A certain user 67.82.232.151 has a clear bias against pharmaceutical companies, and has single-handedly created the current ‘Controversies’ section. Since one guy with a grudge has had such a huge effect on this page, I’m adding a POV tag. I know nothing about the industry myself, but until someone can verify this information we should let people know what’s what.
The user starts a ‘Controversy’ section on Paroxetine page (unsourced):
On Dec 22, 2006, a court decided that individuals who purchased Paxil(R) or Paxil CR(TM) (paroxetine) for a minor child may be eligible for benefits under a $63.8 million Proposed Settlement. The lawsuit alleges that pharmaceutical maker GlaxoSmithKline promoted Paxil(R) or Paxil CR(TM) for prescription to children and adolescents while withholding and concealing material information about the medication's safety and effectiveness for minors. However, GSK certainly must have known of the drug's potential dangers since, in clinical trials, up to 50 percent of patients taking paroxetine experienced adverse withdrawals from the drug. [1]
Here are some of his edits to the Eli Lilly page:
Eli Lilly has been known to engage in withholding internal information on medications, including Prozac, Thimerosal and Zyprexa in order to downplay side effects and adverse reactions in order to boost profits. [2]
Consequently, many critics claim that the FDA approval of duloxetine for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and diabetic neuropathy is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest, and is a case illustration of the agency's failure to prevent harmful drugs from being marketed in the name of big profits. [3]
In one of the only three cases to ever go to trial for SSRI indication in suicide, Eli Lilly was caught corrupting the judicial process by making a deal with the plaintiff's attorney to throw the case, in part by not disclosing damaging evidence to the jury. [4]
Over the last decade, the company spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress in hopes of extending its patent on Prozac and some lawmakers even attempted to insert last-minute provisions to omnibus spending bills to grant the company’s wish. Generic drugmakers prevailed, handing Eli Lilly one of its few legislative losses in recent memory. The company, which favors Republicans over Democrats with its contributions… [5]
This same user also started the ‘Controversy’ statement on the Duloxetine page, containing the following outsourced and obviously biased statements:
In the 1980s, [Eli] Lilly waged a successful campaign to get fluoxetine, brand name Prozac, through the FDA even though not a single study submitted to the agency showed the drug to be effective for depression when taken alone. …not only targets serotonin, it also impacts another important neurochemical, norepinephrine. This flatly contradicts the ‘serotonin/good, norepinephrine/bad’ story that launched the SSRI revolution that [Eli] Lilly started with fluoxetine. [6]
He started a ‘Legal’ section on the Olanzapine page with this:
…documents given to The Times by a lawyer representing mentally ill patients, show that [Eli] Lilly executives kept important information from doctors about Zyprexa’s links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar — both known risk factors for diabetes. [7]
He adds this unsourced statement to the SSRI Discontinuation Syndrome page:
Data obtained from 9 clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) by Lilly Research found that patients with discontinuation-emergent adverse events (DEAEs) were reported by 44.3% of duloxetine patients… No follow up was published by [Eli] Lilly stating the duration of DEAE's longer than one week ultimately persisted for. [8]
--70.17.209.58 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The section you tagged "totally disputed" was not completely written by user 67.82.232.151. Looking at the history shows the writing of that section has been a collaberative effort. user 67.82.232.151 hasn't edited this article for over two months, many changes have been made since then. The section is heavily referenced and that one former author's edits to other articles are not relivant to gauging its factual accuracy. I'm removing the "totally disputed" template from the section because its factual accuracy is not disputed. Neitherday 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Company History
I edited the company history to make it more readable. It looks like someone with a great deal of knowledge but not an immense amount of english wrote it originally. Its a bit better now, but it still needs more work. Also, if someone knowledgeable about it could read over it to make sure I didn't inadvertadly change the meaning, that would be really good. I don't think I changed the meaning of anything there, but I might have. Also, some parts of that history are still confusing and might need looking-into. 151.151.21.102 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Revenue
There seems to be a typo on the Revenue which states Revenue: £21,660 (2005) Which should be Revenue: £21.66 billion (2005)
nishv: 12 Sept 2006
[edit] Business Interests
- As a result of the mergers the company has certain minor businesses which are not strictly within its larger interests.
Anyone know what these certain minor businesses are? Enquiring minds want to know! --Pcb21 07:57 28 May 2003 (UTC)
You could probably find out at their web site.... google glaxosmithkline.
GSK still make Ribena
I think it will simply refer to anything outside core business of pharmaceuticals and consumer healthcare. In the 2004 report there is only one company listed outside core business which is Quest Diagnostics Inc who are involved in clinical testing Jbuzza 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
One Minor Business is AquaFresh i.e. the dental care company. I know because the profit from AquaFresh is turned into my mother's end of year bonus since she works for GSK. :-P --Nate D 06:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Aquafresh like Ribena is just a part of the Consumer healthcare portfolio - it isn't a minor business. Jbuzza 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Who are these Working Mothers?
Does anyone know anything about Working Mothers Magazine? All of the big pharmaceutical companies seem to have received honors from this mysterious publication. Could it be that the magazine is a big Pharma PR organ?
- Check their website "hall of fame" link (http://www.workingmother.com/halloffame.html) and see banks, pharma, and computer companies. Seems more like the correlation is successful companies can afford to be more friendly to working mothers. Seems to make more sense to me than a conspiracy theory. User: Abisai
--Note also that their principle owner is owned by a major investor in media companies. You don't have to call it a conspiracy. It's just another attempt at media monopoly. Since this article is awfully flattering of GSK (as in it could have been written by one of their PR dudes) it merits a bit more research... Relevant websites: http://www.workingmother.com/ourcompany.html http://www.mcgcapital.com/
Isn't this discussion more appropriate on Working Mothers as GSK are not even featured in thier "hall of fame" --Jbuzza 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I shouldn't have tried in the first place, you're right. I actually pointed out the Hall of Fame link because it lists HP and IBM but did not list GSK, which as a company massively advertises across many media outlets without needing this one in particular. And why would a good review mean that this is paid for the the company being reviewed, especially for a company that brands more by product that the GSK logo? This magazine reviews very small companies too:[9] The "for advertisers" link indicates a reach of 2.2m moms, not some ficticious magazine. I give up. If anyone wants to delete this entire conversation, I commend them and fully support it. User: Abisai
[edit] Related news
In November 2005, Singapore licensed a new vaccine, called Rotarix, developed by drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to protect infants against rotavirus gastroenteritis. [10]
[edit] Google maps?
why is there directions GlaxoSmithKline's headquarters, i believe that the person who included this link intended to distribute it with malicious intent, thus i removed it.
[edit] Short Skirts !!
Someone added the following which I removed as I don't believe it is plausible or verifiable:
On August 22, 2006 the company over ruled a directive from CEO JP Garnier that female staff are not allowed to wear skirts shorter than knee length.
Jbuzza 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] panadol
i have a pack of panadol and it seems to be made by GSK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.21.191 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
- And your point is ? Jbuzza 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
