Talk:Pfizer

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2016 2017 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

is The BMJ censored on WP?

The change https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pfizer&type=revision&diff=1053300922&oldid=1053250071 is deleting text from the article with the summary stating "it needs first a classification by other experts". Since when WP has introduced the terms "experts" and maybe "non-experts"? The BMJ is not authoritative enough? The very fact there is an article in WP on The BMJ is adding some credibility, and reading the said article ought to provide enough trust in its integrity.

Even if a text is deleted from the article, a note to the talk page is expected, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.251.252.1 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick thanks

Thank you Liaton9000 for finding better references for the transmission controversy paragraph.

Blessings, 2600:4040:780C:6F00:D60:19E6:BF70:BEF3 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas

Shouldn't there be a mention of the video published on Twitter by Project Veritas in late January 2023, in which a high-level employee revealed that Pfizer was secretly carrying out gain-of-function research in its labs ? Oclupak (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is aggregator of selected corporate media (aka reliable sources). As long as they are silent, you can't really do anything. They will revert all of your changes. It's rigged game Mintus590 (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Rigged game indeed. Am quite aware of that. I also believe it is good practice to point it out, once in a while, as you so eloquently did. Oclupak (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

These are WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RECENTISM comments - keep your attention on the talk page to improving the article with WP:RS sources, which the PV Twitter video is not. Pfizer has responded, denying any gain-of-function research. In vaccine development, it is an obligation to study the virus and its variants to safely engineer future successful vaccines. The forum for judging Pfizer's (and Moderna's) vaccine performance is in the peer-reviewed literature, not via Twitter, news reports or conspiracy theories. Zefr (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Point well taken. It's just that I feel an enormous responsibility to bring to the attention of others information they do not have, which has the potential of causing them to rethink long-held ideas, even if those ideas are totally ignored or outrightly rejected by the Main Stream Media (MSM), and for good reason as this one-minute YouTube video clearly demonstrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5C1gtaBl4

The point I'm trying to make is that relying exclusively on what often-corrupt MSM considers newsworthy deprives us of an enormous quantity of diverging viewpoints.

My aim here is to broaden the spectrum of knowledge available to Wikipedia users who rely too heavily on what is erroneously described as Reliable Sources (RS). It's fine to allow Pfizer to publish its rebuttal, but the initial part of the controversy should also be made readily available. Oclupak (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if this story has yet to be reported on by "reliable sources", it probably should still get a mention considering the sheer size of the story itself and has the potential to bring down the monolith that is Pfizer Inc. if stories from the likes of Atlas Shrugged are to believed. I know that The Epoch Times is no longer considered a "reliable source" since ~2019/2020 but still this is a good article: https://www.theepochtimes.com/pfizer-responds-after-director-says-company-is-developing-ways-to-mutate-covid-19_5017297.html and a free version is offered on ZeroHedge here: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfizer-responds-after-director-says-company-developing-ways-mutate-covid-19 which of note is also not a "reliable source" (although they should both be considered "reliable" since they're only "unreliable" on left-wing political terms with top communists on WP like User:Slatersteven just to unfortunately name names who are obviously biased. And although Pfizer has "rebutted" the claims in the Project Veritas video, it does not mean that PV is wrong (or lying) and one could certainly make the claim that Pfizer is just trying to cover their butts with this one. The Project Veritas video should be put into the main WP article and once Mainstream Media outlets start covering the story (because many journos just copy from WP), they can be added as citations afterwards wether Pfizer Inc. likes it or not. 2A02:C7C:5C36:1100:7994:ED7:CDBA:68B4 (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC) https://www.minds.com/wclifton968 (not logged in because of a perma account ban)

No, it won't be going in. If you keep making personal attacks like that which is a violation of WP:NPA, you will be bloked. scope_creep^Talk 01:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Its not a good article if it is not an RS, and we judge weight by wp:rs not "some crappy websites". Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Problem is that in this instance most, if not all, ‘’Reliable Sources’’ seem to have been bought and paid for by Pfizer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR5C1gtaBl4

Can we really trust those media to report a news item that may prove detrimental to one of their sponsors, and a most generous one at that?

Therefore, what is the proper course of action in those circumstances? Aren't Wikipedia users entitled to know what is going on about this controversy? Oclupak (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to accurately represent what Reliable Sources say. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or represent what individual editors think is the WP:TRUTH. If you have a problem with that, you will need to change some of the core foundations of Wikipedia, and this certainly is not the place for such a discussion. Cakelot1 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Eureka! I have found a rather lenghty article relating what has been going on in the Veritas/Pfizer caper at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11678281/Undercover-footage-reveals-Pfizer-exploring-manipulating-COVID-make-potent.html

The Daily Mail qualifies as a Reliable Source, right? Can we therefore extract a few items from this publication and append them to the Pfizer article for the benefit of all Wikipedia users who might be interested to know what the fuss is all about? Oclupak (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No. — SamX [talk • contribs] 03:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not WP:RS - it is WP:DEPS. Zefr (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Collaborations / Acquisitions

Pfizer collaborated with a company called ArQule that was falsley claiming to be "automating" chemistry when the VP of chemistry was so computer illiterate he didn't even have one on his desk, adamant it was a waste of time and to do things by hand despite telling investors and clients otherwise. Pfizer eventually "acquired" this so called technology. Pfizer acquired RGO Biosciences anyway despite the fact they'd been falsely claiming to have activity with their TCPC. RGO key scientists were people who had only ever worked for temp agencies prior despite there being many qualified people available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Brackett (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Giancarbonell (article contribs). Peer reviewers: BruinsHockey1234.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2024 and 4 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mydogjack71 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mydogjack71 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)