Talk:Biopharmaceutical

message: Why don't we fusion this article with biopharmacology? --Pepetps 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is like fusion medication and pharmacology. In biopharmaceutical should be the families of biopharmaceuticals, and in biopharmacology the advantatges and reasons of use this type of drugs (symilar to :ca:biofarmacologia). I'd like to translate the Catalan articles but my English level don't let me. Llull 18:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion

message: : Not Moved. Closure as requested by nominator. Station1 (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Weak Oppose. Reading the discussion just below, it seems to me that "biopharmaceutical" is used as a noun with a specific meaning more often than "pharmaceutical" is. "Biopharmaceutical drug" seems to me to be needlessly verbose. But I don't feel strongly at all. Interested readers will be able to find the page under either name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*Google search shows plenty examples of the noun plural "pharmaceuticals", even if I exclude uses in company names. See also wiktionary:pharmaceutical. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Weak Oppose. Reading the discussion just below, it seems to me that "biopharmaceutical" is used as a noun with a specific meaning more often than "pharmaceutical" is. "Biopharmaceutical drug" seems to me to be needlessly verbose. But I don't feel strongly at all. Interested readers will be able to find the page under either name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*Google search shows plenty examples of the noun plural "pharmaceuticals", even if I exclude uses in company names. See also wiktionary:pharmaceutical. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: It seems that there is a clear consensus not to move the page. Would any uninvolved editor close it as Not moved, please? Otherwise, I'll close it myself if there are no objections. --RexxS (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal closure

message: today i merged this article into Biologic medical product as it almost completely overlapped and the target article was not so long that it needed a split.  In general the "drug" articles are too scattered and lack interconnection.  working on fixing that. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge 

message: Please see Biologics for immunosuppression.
I struggled with the term "biologics" because it is an ambiguous world with multiple meanings. I redirected biologics from this article to that one.
I started a discussion about terminology on the talk page of that article. Before I meddle with this article I thought that I would let that other article sit for a while, because I have doubts about how to separate the concept of "biopharmaceutical" as something distinct from "biologics".  Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A biologic is synonymous with biopharmaceutical. A biopharmaceutical is any pharmaceutical produced from biological sources and is not restricted to immunosuppressants. Hence the previous redirect should be restored. Biologics include immunostimulants used in cancer immunotherapy (see for example this list) and also include a whole raft of other indications such as insulin for diabetes.  Cochrane is flat out wrong in their definition. Boghog (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a term for the class of drugs which are are structurally biologics and have the effect of an immunosuppressant? How do you feel about Cochrane or anyone else event treating that intersection as a concept to be discussed?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure that there is a preferred term for this. Biologics for immunosuppression, immunosuppressive biologics, immunosuppressive biopharmaceuticals, etc. all work.  Clearly this is legitimate subject deserving its own article.  What I disagree with is equating biologics with immunosuppressants. While the majority of biologics currently in the clinic are immunosuppressants, not all biologics are immunosuppressive. Boghog (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Boghog's perspective. This is the way it should be. I was confused before and less confused now. I think it would be confusing to use the term "biologics" when there is ambiguity about whether only the discussion is about one use or many different compounds with any possible uses.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article - Biologics for immunosuppression