Talk:Pfizer/Archives/2014

Exploded

Exploded sounds rather dramatic. Almost certainly catastrophic failure, but accompanied by high temperature and expanding gases? I doubt it. Can we either back up the word "exploded" or change to something more plausible? Wikid 13:52 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A few months ago there was a documentary on Channel 4, which mentioned some fairly dubious things Pfizer have done -- anyone have the details? I also happen to know that their UK employees are forbidden to join a union, though I don't know how common a practice this is in the UK -- Tarquin 12:44 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Pfizer vs. Pfizer Inc. - proposal to reverse a move from July 2004

In July 2004, an anonymous author moved the article from "Pfizer" to "Pfizer Inc." The majority of link to the "Pfizer Inc." article are through the redirect created by this move. What would you think about swapping and using "Pfizer" as the main article and "Pfizer Inc." as the redirect? Courtland 16:38, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

I would definitely support that fix. I'm sure there's a naming convention I'm too lazy to find, but a good example is Microsoft: Its legal name, Microsoft Corporation, redirects to Microsoft. If you plan on making the move, make sure you fix any double redirects. See WP:MOVE. Mrtea (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I also would agree with the move. I search for it through Pfizer. --Matterbug 18:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support the move. Most company articles don't have the Inc. (or whatever) in article title and for most readers the exact form of incorporation is of no interest anyway. jni 07:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've revisited this as I was going to formally nominate this for a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves and subsequently fount that the move is technically correct according to present guidelines; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). In the case of Pfizer, the company self-refers as 'Pfizer, Inc' in their 'About Pfizer' statement at http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/index.jsp. Keeping the article at Pfizer Inc. seems supported by these observations. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should base Wikipedia naming conventions on some HR manager's about.html. Pfizer's website spells the company most of the time without the "Inc." If you take a random sample of 10-20 well-known companies from Category:Companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange and compare their websites to Wikipedia articles (both title and lead sentence) and to their SEC filings (where the "Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter" is typically on the front page) you will see discrepancies in almost every case and that Wikipedia omits the "Inc." from title almost every time (when not needed for disambig.) For example Berkshire Hathaway's website uniformly names the company as "Berkshire Hathaway Inc." as do its SEC filings (except that in some of them it is spelled as "Berkshire Hathaway, Inc." with the comma). Still, in published books, newspaper articles and other references about Berkshire the superfluous Inc. is usually omitted. jni 11:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You unnecessarily belittle Pfizer staff who design and maintain the outward face of the company. Consult the company's most recent 10-Q statement (see http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/download/investors/financial/10q_0508_06.pdf) in which it is prominantly stated "PFIZER INC. (exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)". I don't think that was written by 'some HR manager'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes I have seen Pfizer's 10-Qs and 10-Ks. By your logic we should rename vast majority of our articles about American companies because all of them have some designation comparable to "Inc." in their SEC filings. Why should Pfizer be an exception to our naming conventions? jni 12:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal to move this back to simply Pfizer. If we went by 10-q statements and other such legalese, then nearly all articles about corporate entities are incorrectly named. The fact is that most coporations are more commonly known by names other than their legal name. The very about pfizer page mentioned above also very prominently uses simply Pfizer to refer to the company for the majority of references. older ≠ wiser 15:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify something here; I don't advocate moving articles based on legalese alone. I originally suggested that the move of 'Pfizer' to 'Pfizer Inc.' be reversed; then after some time had passed, I felt that the status quo (where it is now) is ok, i.e. not inappropriate. I offered up an opinion, and I will certainly not stand in the way of a consensus to do what I originally proposed, despite my no longer supporting it. I'm somewhat sorry now that I gave it any more thought ... no, that I expressed that additional thought. If the concern of other editors has now turned to questioning whether I am in the business of changing articles to conform to legalese rather than 'reasonable expectation' or 'standard use', I can assure you that I am not in that business. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend to sound as if I was attacking you. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was only pointing out what seemed an inconsistency to me in basing arguments about article names on 10-q and other such legal documents or on a web page that uses "Pfizer, Inc." once and everywhere else uses only "Pfizer". older ≠ wiser 17:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; I didn't take it as an attack — my experience tells me that you are not the type of person who makes personal attacks. I'm concerned about folks in general getting the notion that I'm picking sides in the oft contentious side show of titling tug of war. The statement 'I can assure you' is for the two of you who expressed concern and, more broadly, for anyone who happens across this article - and for the many who respect your opinion in these matters. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Kelo v. New London

Could we mention Pfizer's recent lawsuit in wich New London used its power of eminent domain to take a big hunk of land to build a regional center? I beleive the case was Kelo v. New London anyways...

I think a brief mention of Pfizer's involvement in Kelo, a reference to the Kelo page, and a quote from Justice Thomas regarding Pfizer's involvement would be a great addition. It's well documented and a clearly significant impact on people's lives with far reaching consequences, probably good and bad.Sandwich Eater 15:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fluconazole

Can someone please tell me what is the relation between Fluconazole an Anti-Fungal and AIDS? Its mentioned in the AIDS Involvement section, i don't really seem to get the link. Lamuk69 (talk) 09:20, 07 June 2006 (UTC)

People with aids get really awful fungal infections and fluconazole appears to be very necessary for treatment. If I recall correctly (and that's a big if) there is a neural infection of some wort that is particuarlly nasty. Sandwich Eater 15:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bribery in Mexico

Pfizer has serious accusations alongside drug wholesaler Farmacos Especializados SA de CV of illegal payments to Mexicans Authorities, in order to secure the inclusion of its portfolio within government health care institutions (ISSSTE). There are plenty of reported irregularities, specially in the Mexican Social Security, where the company sells plenty of more expensive cholesterol lowering product (Lipitor) over cheaper generic versions of generic drugs (Simvastatin and Pravastatin). Oftentimes ISSSTE favor’s Pfizer with huge purchases and failing to maximize budget to purchase more critical drugs, thus compromising the healthcare coverage of Mexican Citizens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.234.249 (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I included my impressions of the rhotic and non-rhotic pronunciations of Pfizer, since when I first saw the word written I had no idea of how to pronounce it. If I've made a mistake, please correct them • Leon 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

News: Reduction of Sales Force

Media reported in the past week or so a substantial reduction in Pfizer's sales force -- 25% if memory serves (tho I have no special interest in following the issue). Someone might want to look further and see if this article should be updated. --OWL 13:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

News: Class Action Suit in Canada

[url]http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=7c963231-bb52-43f7-a67f-2e83f114c33b[/url] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.113.153 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Zantac

Zantac is manufactured by gsk not by Pfizer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.62.97.20 (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:PfizerLogo.png

Image:PfizerLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Green Stone

Is there a link between Green Stone Pharmaceutical (they make a generic Zithromax) and Pfizer? Dynamicfun 16:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

not the world's largest

Johnson and Johnson is the world's largest pharmaceutical company, not Pfizer. JNJ does sell other stuff. JNJ is a bigger company. Pfizer does sell more drugs, I think (can't find source).

How about car companies? The order of companies by revenue is different form order by number of vehicles sold which is different from number of cars (not SUVs and trucks) sold. So this similar with Pfizer and JNJ.Spevw 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pfizer is the world's largest research based pharmaceutical company. I have edited the article with a citation. Oliverwk 10:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger section

The merger section lists quite a bit of information and history about the companies involved in mergers with Pfizer. I believe the extraneous information should be deleted, so as to keep concise and to-the-point. The information should be moved to the companies' pages (if it is not present already). wingman358 07:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created a new article for SUGEN and moved most of the details to that article Ceolas (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Attention Admin

There are several claims/events in this article that need not be in a encyclopedia. For example it is irrelevant how much Pfizer has donated in Nigeria and what it aims to do in future. I think this article needs serious attention and deletion of several sections towards the end. Thank you. Platinum999 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Pfizer funded false research supporting it's pharms

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data

21 studies that where either partially or fully falsified by an anesthesiologist on Pfizer's payroll. This information should be included in the wikipedia article. 72.136.137.24 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Caution: Pfizer has not admitted complicity in this deception, so could take legal action if fault is attributed to them. They paid for independent research; the independent researcher was the one who falsified results.Wugo (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"...the discovery and marketing of (Zoloft, Lipitor, Norvasc, Zithromax, Aricept, Diflucan, Viagra). "

From the article:
During the 1980s and 1990s Pfizer underwent a period of growth sustained by the discovery and marketing of (Zoloft, Lipitor, Norvasc, Zithromax, Aricept, Diflucan, Viagra).
Shouldn't the brackets be removed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 settlement

There are minor difficulties in reconciling the language in the BBC report and the NYT's article. I think American language ought to be used for this section as it is an American legal proceeding. I'm not sure what "misbranding" means. I'm not sure any American would. Does it mean illegal marketing? or does it have other connotations? This settlement might be notable enough to support a separate article. Fred Talk 15:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nigeria and POV problems

I believe there are serious POV issues with the "Nigeria" sub-section under "Legislation and litigation". In particular, this section "In 2007, Pfizer published a Statement of Defense...unrelated to meningitis, were observed after 4 weeks." constitutes roughly half of the section, and yet is based on a single source that is self-published by Pfizer and hosted on their website. Also:

• The section uses bold typeface to outline the points made by pfizer, effectively giving these points more emphasis and not using any third-party sources to justify, verify, or critically examine these points.

• Presenting these points after the discussion of the negative allegations and controversy, which is presented first, has the effect of presenting these points as the "final say".

• Presenting an isolated paragraph with a statement like "The administration of Trovan saved lives." whether in bold-type or not is misleading to those glancing at the article...as this is a claim given in the defense statement, not a truth established in the outcome of a court-case, or by any sort of consensus in third-party sources.

• The use of the term "claims which deserve mention" is problematic and an example of WP:Weasel Words...deserve mention according to whom?

On the basis of these points I'm going to re-work this section to address all four of these points. I would appreciate any help anyone could give. In my opinion the ways to correct this are (1) eliminating the bold typeface, (2,3) integrating the material about Pfizer's claims into the prose instead of presenting the whole section like a rebuttal after the allegations, and instead of having isolated claims presented as single paragraphs. (4) eliminating the weasel-word language and clearly delineating which parties made which claims and not making any judgments about which claims are more deserving of mention, only referring to which claims have been documented/discussed in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I've had to rename this section to "Nigerian Illegal Human Trials" rather than "Nigeria". As someone new to the issue I find "Nigeria" to be a terrible title. I thought the topic had been completely omitted as I scanned the page, "Nigeria" is so vague I assumed it was a legal challenge regarding generic big pharma IP or the like. I feel it is nothing short of obfuscating the truth, shall we rechristen the Three Mile nuclear accident "Pennsylvania" as well? Anonymous, 01-11-2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.139.187 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Spam Emails

Should there be a section about spam emails from people claiming to be from Pfizer? 70.16.239.164 (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am bombarded with spam from Pfizer, ten emails a day, trying to sell me viagra etc. It is spam from Pfizer. 173.169.89.161 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The spammers are fooling you. The emails do not come from Pfizer. They come from sleazy spammers in Russia and elsewhere trying to make a buck off you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.89.95 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Information needs to be added about how Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption on Nigerian attorney general to persuade him to drop legal action over a controversial drug trial involving children with meningitis, according to a leaked US embassy cable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.142.70 (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Intro section

This section currently features the line "Called a repeat offender, this was Pfizer's fourth such settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in the previous ten years". I have no vested interest in the company and the line is cited, but this seems to be a little "off" for inclusion in an intro that already has a line about them being landed the biggest fine in pharma history. Basically 10% of a 150 year old company's summarization (and much of the rest is just a litany of products) is accusing them of being a criminal venture. Is it notable that they were landed with the largest ever fine for illegal drug marketing? Yes, of course. However litigation is an almost inevitable part of drug development - all drug "majors" have entire divisions devoted to legalities. This particular sentence I believe, because of its appearence in the intro and therefore prominence, carries undue weight and should be removed unless or until the intro is expanded to the point where it becomes a more balanced entry. I'm disinclined to remove it without consensus as clinical drugs are an area that can arouse high feeling, but I do think that it makes the intro imbalanced. danno 01:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Logo of Pfizer

Dear Wikipedians, i tried to add a logo to the article Pfizerlogo.gif, look for this image in Commons. But i am not able to add this. Later on i uploaded a new image using the logo upload form. The image can be inserted into any other article,except this. Can anyone help ?

Anandtr2006 (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. In short, fair use images must not be uploaded to commons. They can be uploaded here though, provided all the hoops are jumped through, to substantiate that it really is fair use. Try again here, and address any flagging reports that get posted to your talk page or the article talk page (such as the one above) regarding the logo that someone else uploaded, but presumably failed to respond to. If you jump through the hoops, administrators are quite unlikely to delete the logo.--Elvey (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Zyrtec

Pfizer was admonished by the FDA for marketing Zyrtec using overstated claims. Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil Laboratories, who now markets Zyrtec was admonized by the BBB's Advertising Self-Regulatory Council for advertisements that convey the inaccurate message that Zyrtec keeps working for 24 hours while Claritin does not, and misleading consumers into believing they will obtain relief in a much shorter period of time by using Zyrtec over Claritin. All claims from source: Case #4903 (08/29/08) decision. (NAD/CARU Case Reports) Zyrtec was a blockbuster; shouldn't a few things about the drug be mentioned somewhere in this article? Seems at least as notable as the names of various executives.--Elvey (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Shareholders?

Recent moves to make inroads into generic drugs from India or the debate about evergreening patents are quite political, and Pfizer is clearly a political player to advance their business. As shareholders have a certain influence on the policies of a company it would be interesting to know who the shareholders typically are. I know it varies, but we'd like to see which individuals or organisations influence the course. Pfizer would be a stock that shareholders would hold long term. They may not be the only player who pushes for more revenue from patents but a significant one when it comes to life and death of some people. It is also worth noting that they do not seem to seek the change of patent laws in the international organisations in charge with that but in bilateral moves. Who is behind that, you wonder. 144.136.192.45 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Agent production for Cold War US bio-warfare program

Not to vilify but the are several sources describing this involvement as well as human experimentation.Johnvr4 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)