Talk:AbbVie Inc./Archives/2016

Stemcentrx

Content removed from the article, really belongs on its own article (if the company is notable enough to have one).

Before it was acquired Stemcentrx raised $500 million and was allegedly valued at more than $3 billion, making it a Silicon Valley “unicorns,” a private tech company worth a billion dollars or more. Backers include Sequoia Capital, Elon Musk, Fidelity Investments and most notably Founders Fund, the investment firm led by Peter Thiel. Competitors include public companies OncoMed and Verastem.

The company built a “vivarium” to house 18,000 white mice and established a glass-enclosed factory where the company makes experimental drugs. The company devoted its attention to understanding and controlling cancer stem cells (CSC). Their hypothesis is that destroying the relatively rare stem cells will stop the cancer.

In September 2015 it presented the results of its first clinical trial. They showed early results for an antibody drug it manufactures and that targets stem cells that cause small-cell lung cancer. The company was then conducting clinical trials on three drugs. However, other scientists recently found rare stem cell in skin cancer. They claimed that if they simply switched to a different kind of mouse, a quarter of the human melanoma cells were able to cause cancer.

The company's approach is to insert bits of freshly obtained human cancers under the skin of a mouse with no immune system, a so-called xenograft. The cancer that grows is collected and divided into different cell types. Each fraction is implanted into other mice. The process, called “limiting dilution”, is repeated as long as it takes to find the one type of cell, the CSC, that reliably regenerates a tumor that matches the original. Tumors from 600 patients spanning a dozen types of cancer grow inside its mice.

Stemcentrx claimed it had discovered a protein, called DLL3, that appears on what it thinks are stem cells responsible for small cell lung cancer. They created a drug that links a chemical toxin to an antibody that attaches to this protein.

References

XyZAn (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Move of article to "AbbVie"

I did not see a discussion or action related to a previous article move, so I thought I would broach it. I'd suggest moving the article from AbbVie Inc. to AbbVie based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). Thanks for your objections, questions, comments, etc. I won't move it unless there's either a clear consensus to do so, or a resounding "don't care either way". Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a valid point. I would not oppose. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

History section is weak

The History section is just a collection of cut-and-pastes from press releases about some deals.

There is no discussion of AbbVie's sales, profits, employment, management changes, major products, or facilities.

Formatting

Having restored my content, I'll give details of my reasoning for the changes:

• There are unnecessary sub headings, a couple of lines of text does not warrant a subheading.
• My edits move the page to a format more commonly shown in other Pharma company articles.

XyZAn (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

this article needs a lot of work. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, I thought naming the CEO was extraneous to the topic at hand. I definitely cited the source, so I don't understand the copyright vio. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 02:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You copy/pasted from the article, and put quotes on part of it. for pete's sake. Here is your edit:

The purpose of the split was to "enable investors to better value the two divisions, which have grown into distinct business lines… [investors will] benefit from two fundamentally different investment opportunities with distinct strategic profiles and business priorities." Investors, meanwhile, initially raised concerns that the spinoff was a way to separate Abbott from the looming liability presented by the 2016 U.S. patent expiration of Humira, which represented about half of the drug division's sales.

References

here is what the source says:

"Abbott Chief Executive Miles White has said the split will enable investors to better value the two divisions, which have grown into distinct business lines. White said in a recent investor call that investors will "benefit from two fundamentally different investment opportunities with distinct strategic profiles and business priorities." Investors, meanwhile, initially raised concerns that the spinoff was a way to separate Abbott from the looming liability presented by the 2016 U.S. patent expiration of Humira, which represents about half of the drug division's sales."

You also mixed words the reporter paraphrased with the actual words that the CEO said, inside what you did quote. And the whole sentence about Investors was directly copy-pasted from the source. This is completely unacceptable. How could you be unaware that you did this, and that this is not OK?

I am going to go look at more of your editing now - if you have been doing this a lot you are putting WP at great risk. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Didn't find any more. whew. Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jytdog, I appreciate the criticism -- I do think you could be more constructive in your feedback. The outrage is inappropriate. I'm happy to read further any guidelines you would care to point me towards. I'd like to do more substantial edits than I have in the past, and I will endeavor to improve first pass correctness. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 03:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Please don't copy/paste into WP. If you are going to directly quote something please say who said it; the way you did that you put it weirdly in WP's voice, when it was the company's perspective. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct Jytdog, and I see how that entire segment was poorly done. Thanks for improving it. By the way, these company pages (Fortune 1000 companies for example) are pretty random in their structure and prioritization. Is there a good place to discuss improving them collectively? Thanks again. Mcenedella (talk)(contribs) 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being harsh. There is a wikiproject for companies. see the main page for the guidelines they have developed at WP:WikiProject_Companies and you can talk to project members at the associated talk page... Thanks for being gracious and sorry again that i was ungracious. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)