Talk:Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This article does a good job of criticizing PhRMA but hardly presents the other point of view.

Agreed.

A certain [[[user:67.82.232.151|user 67.82.232.151]] has a clear bias against the Eli Lilly Corporation, and this seems to extend to all major pharmaceutical companies. He has added a great deal to the negative tone of this page. Since one guy with a grudge has had such a huge effect on this page, I’m adding a POV tag. I know nothing about the industry myself, but until someone can verify this information we should let people know what’s what.

Here are some of his edits to the Eli Lilly page:

Eli Lilly has been known to engage in withholding internal information on medications, including Prozac, Thimerosal and Zyprexa in order to downplay side effects and adverse reactions in order to boost profits. [1]

Consequently, many critics claim that the FDA approval of duloxetine for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and diabetic neuropathy is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest, and is a case illustration of the agency's failure to prevent harmful drugs from being marketed in the name of big profits. [2]

In one of the only three cases to ever go to trial for SSRI indication in suicide, Eli Lilly was caught corrupting the judicial process by making a deal with the plaintiff's attorney to throw the case, in part by not disclosing damaging evidence to the jury. [3]

Over the last decade, the company spent millions of dollars lobbying Congress in hopes of extending its patent on Prozac and some lawmakers even attempted to insert last-minute provisions to omnibus spending bills to grant the company’s wish. Generic drugmakers prevailed, handing Eli Lilly one of its few legislative losses in recent memory. The company, which favors Republicans over Democrats with its contributions… [4]

This same user also started the ‘Controversy’ statement on the Duloxetine page, containing the following outsourced and obviously biased statements:

In the 1980s, [Eli] Lilly waged a successful campaign to get fluoxetine, brand name Prozac, through the FDA even though not a single study submitted to the agency showed the drug to be effective for depression when taken alone. …not only targets serotonin, it also impacts another important neurochemical, norepinephrine. This flatly contradicts the ‘serotonin/good, norepinephrine/bad’ story that launched the SSRI revolution that [Eli] Lilly started with fluoxetine. [5]

He started a ‘Legal’ section on the Olanzapine page with this:

…documents given to The Times by a lawyer representing mentally ill patients, show that [Eli] Lilly executives kept important information from doctors about Zyprexa’s links to obesity and its tendency to raise blood sugar—both known risk factors for diabetes. [6]

He adds this unsourced statement to the SSRI Discontinuation Syndrome page:

Data obtained from 9 clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) by Lilly Research found that patients with discontinuation-emergent adverse events (DEAEs) were reported by 44.3% of duloxetine patients… No follow up was published by [Eli] Lilly stating the duration of DEAE's longer than one week ultimately persisted for. [7]

--70.17.209.58 09:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

I added the NPOV tag because this article is shamefully one sided - it's an attack piece against the organization. Sourced criticism is fine, but this is ridiculous. Deli nk 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag because the concerns listed above seem to have been addressed now. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources published by PhRMA and an Issues section

In this discussion, Intermittentgardener said "I am using primary sources only for the Issues section and the issues section is all about PhRMA's opinions". But Wikipedia doesn't exist in order to republish organizational claims. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, says the first sentence under the section "Overview" of our content guideline. If one wants to read what PhRMA says about themselves then one can go to their official website. It is a violation of WP:IRS and WP:SOAP/WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV to create a section in which PhRMA advances, defines, and discusses their own issues, in my opinion. By contrast, a couple issues that should be covered are Medicare part D lobbying and the deal struck with Obama before the recent U.S. healthcare reform. Jesanj (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did the 2009 301 complaining go anywhere? Why is it important?

On balance the article says "Asked to comment, Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines Director-General Adrian S. Cristobal, Jr. said: 'The cheaper medicines law and its implementing rules and regulations are all TRIPS-compliant,' without going into details." But I digress: this page doesn't exist to air any and every PhRMA grievance that has been published. Why does this one report deserve airing? Because the Bush administration ignored them in 2008 and they griped louder? Jesanj (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110319121101/http://www.phrma.org:80/research/patient-resources to http://www.phrma.org/research/patient-resources

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Ubl

Stephen J. Ubl was interviewed by Judy Woodruff on PBS News on 6/23/2017, regarding his role in PhRMA. MaynardClark (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]