Talk:Gilead Sciences

message: After reading an article on Ars Technica I jumped straight here to see if there was any mention of the whistleblower lawsuit related to contaminated emtricitabine made in China and there was none. Isn't this relevant enough to be recorded here? The best news article I found about it is this one here, but I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's customs and protocols on editing an article (I just created my account after years of just reading it). 
Marshal banana 1983 (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whistleblower Lawsuit 

message: Out of an abundance of caution, I am adding content to the talk page before editing the article directly:  By March 2020, Gilead Sciences (GILD) was making a substantial profit mainly because of its $17 billion HIV franchise and its HCV portfolio, which includes HCV drugs, such as  Sovaldi and Harvoni, according to a Morningstar article.  The sale of these two HCV drugs peaked at more than $19 billion in 2015. Gilead had acquired Sovaldi when it purchased Pharmasset in November 2011 for $11.2 billion. $11 billion Pharmasset deal brought key HCV drug Sovaldi. Sovaldi and Harvoni (a combination of Sovaldi and ledipasvir) peaked at more than $19 billion in sales in 2015. HCV portfolio. Both HIV and HCV medications are inexpensive to manufacture and easy to market.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm no replies, that's odd; and your stuff does not seem to have been incorporated in the article. Did you simply move on to other endeavours? —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Potential RS

message: Zefr, since you are the only one insistent that this isn't viable content, please provide criteria that need to be addressed.  I'm happy to remove it permanently and prevent this fight if and only if you provide criteria that cannot be addressed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  that this material is of marginal relevance to the article (which I think needs considerable overall trimming – this is a general encyclopedia). The article should be about the company; obviously major drugs of relevance should be included, but many details specific to those drugs should be put in the drug article, not the company article. So take up Zefr's suggestion to consider this for the FIP article. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  are there reliable sources that show this is a general feature of the company's behaviour, or is it specific to this drug? If the former, then, sure, it belongs here. If the latter, it does not, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure there's another example of something this specific, i.e, a drug being potentially extremely useful for  animals and drawing ire of said animals' owners when not developed as such, but other well-sourced sections of the article as written detail controversies over Gilead's delays in development of human drugs. As The Atlantic article notes, however, the practice of avoiding additional research into a drug while seeking its approval is not uncommon. I am unsure if this is also true in cases where there is reason to believe the extra research ("extra research" here being catch-all for what goes into FDA veterinary authorization, in this case) would entail plausible medical benefit. This is a bit of extrapolation on my part, be warned: the core of the controversy seems to be that Gilead would (possibly? likely?) develop the drug along further lines if there were other potential avenues for human use, but because the research only points to use in FIP, Gilead has not done so, which is where the criticism of some veterinarians and cat-lovers has come in. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs)  22:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  And while we may all aspire to complete disaffectedness anyways, I did take like twenty minutes write that above sourced paragraph, but I do want to make it a point to say that if consensus is reached against including it or similar in the article here, I am fine letting it die peacefully in the talk section. c'est la wiki-vie. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs)  22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

text:  Irrelevant.  There are many, many issues which put organizations into the news that have little to nothing to do with their mission statements: environmental, social, governmental ... even purely incidental or pop culture-oriented. Here we have a situation involving one of Gilead's best-known drugs, and that furthermore is reported not by blogposts or ephemeral pop culture outfits but by some of the most respected and reliable media sources extant.  Now yes, no doubt Gilead's PR department would greatly prefer that this issue stay out of the public eye and off of Wikipedia.  I'm just at a loss as to figure why we would want to do so.   Ravenswing      01:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  positively my last word on this. I do not want to keep this issue . I just think that the article is sufficiently long and complex as it is, without adding another chunk that could be very briefly summarized here and expanded, with reliable sources, at the drug article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @petercoxhead I agree that simplicity (1-2 lines) and brevity is likely the best policy here with a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS-441524, referencing the drug and controversy, where it is discussed in further detail.  This section became really long and drawn out in response to other criticisms.  I also agree that much of the page could be further edited to help with brevity and focus.  As for why it should be on their page and not simply on the drugs page...It is another example of Gilead choosing to protect profits at all costs (see Discovy/Truvada controversy).  There is also no other drug being withheld that either my wife (a pharmacist) or myself (a PhD Chemical Biologist) that has even small scale clinical studies demonstrating effectiveness over what used to be a death sentence.  The other part of the problem is that they originally claimed they needed to wait until they obtained FDA approval for its analog, redemsivir.  FDA approval was granted over a year ago (October 22nd, 2020).  There still has not been release of the drug for any future clinical trials or veterinary research despite calls for it.  In contrast, Pfizer has an entire product line dedicated to veterinary medicine...so the claim that all drug companies have behaved in this way is oversimplistic.  I'd also strongly argue that very few people have heard of or will look up drugs that are known only by their catalog name...so more people are likely to be referred to the drug page from Gilead Science than vice-versa.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veterinary Meds