Talk:GSK plc/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Google maps?
why is there directions GlaxoSmithKline's headquarters, i believe that the person who included this link intended to distribute it with malicious intent, thus i removed it.
Business Interests
- As a result of the mergers the company has certain minor businesses which are not strictly within its larger interests.
Anyone know what these certain minor businesses are? Enquiring minds want to know! --Pcb21 07:57 28 May 2003 (UTC)
You could probably find out at their web site.... google glaxosmithkline.
GSK still make Ribena
I think it will simply refer to anything outside core business of pharmaceuticals and consumer healthcare. In the 2004 report there is only one company listed outside core business which is Quest Diagnostics Inc who are involved in clinical testing Jbuzza 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
One Minor Business is AquaFresh i.e. the dental care company. I know because the profit from AquaFresh is turned into my mother's end of year bonus since she works for GSK. :-P --Nate D 06:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Aquafresh like Ribena is just a part of the Consumer healthcare portfolio - it isn't a minor business. Jbuzza 21:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Who are these Working Mothers?
Does anyone know anything about Working Mothers Magazine? All of the big pharmaceutical companies seem to have received honors from this mysterious publication. Could it be that the magazine is a big Pharma PR organ?
- Check their website "hall of fame" link (http://www.workingmother.com/halloffame.html) and see banks, pharma, and computer companies. Seems more like the correlation is successful companies can afford to be more friendly to working mothers. Seems to make more sense to me than a conspiracy theory. User: Abisai
--Note also that their principle owner is owned by a major investor in media companies. You don't have to call it a conspiracy. It's just another attempt at media monopoly. Since this article is awfully flattering of GSK (as in it could have been written by one of their PR dudes) it merits a bit more research... Relevant websites: http://www.workingmother.com/ourcompany.html http://www.mcgcapital.com/
Isn't this discussion more appropriate on Working Mothers as GSK are not even featured in thier "hall of fame" --Jbuzza 22:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I shouldn't have tried in the first place, you're right. I actually pointed out the Hall of Fame link because it lists HP and IBM but did not list GSK, which as a company massively advertises across many media outlets without needing this one in particular. And why would a good review mean that this is paid for the the company being reviewed, especially for a company that brands more by product that the GSK logo? This magazine reviews very small companies too:[1] The "for advertisers" link indicates a reach of 2.2m moms, not some ficticious magazine. I give up. If anyone wants to delete this entire conversation, I commend them and fully support it. User: Abisai
Short Skirts !!
Someone added the following which I removed as I don't believe it is plausible or verifiable:
On August 22, 2006 the company over ruled a directive from CEO JP Garnier that female staff are not allowed to wear skirts shorter than knee length.
Jbuzza 18:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Company History
I edited the company history to make it more readable. It looks like someone with a great deal of knowledge but not an immense amount of english wrote it originally. Its a bit better now, but it still needs more work. Also, if someone knowledgeable about it could read over it to make sure I didn't inadvertadly change the meaning, that would be really good. I don't think I changed the meaning of anything there, but I might have. Also, some parts of that history are still confusing and might need looking-into. 151.151.21.102 16:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Revenue
There seems to be a typo on the Revenue which states Revenue: £21,660 (2005) Which should be Revenue: £21.66 billion (2005)
nishv: 12 Sept 2006
Related news
In November 2005, Singapore licensed a new vaccine, called Rotarix, developed by drug manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to protect infants against rotavirus gastroenteritis. [2]
panadol
i have a pack of panadol and it seems to be made by GSK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.21.191 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
- And your point is ? Jbuzza 15:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly that it should be added to major brands. Actually there are a number of large consumer products that aren't listed, but there's no great need for a complete list.Zelphi 16:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Following the mergers
A diagram would be a big help in tracking what merged with what. As is, the article leaps back and forwards in time as it tries to keep track of all the players. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I've been working on this. Using the iPod history chart as a template, I made this. Somebody who knows what they're doing should edit it til it's good enough to put in the article.
- I've had a quick go and moved merging companies closer together. Would be good to make it clearer which companies were involved in each merger; although the name changes make it pretty obvious, I think a more graphical indication would be good (lines linking the two legacy companies?) I have no idea how to do it! ~Stav~ (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
In my mind, I wanted it to look like one of those evolution diagrams that shows the lineages branching out. Also, in this version it looks like French Richard and RIT are the same company. (Because they are on the same line.) If you wanted to have them on the same line for space reasons, they could be radically different colors. Also, I don't know how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.226.1 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Timeline of GlaxoSmithKline Mergers
POV problems—Environmental Record
The content of this section has been replaced by User:Jlemos35 with content that, while likely true, and citing sources, is clearly biased against GlaxoSmithKline (although the previous version had the opposite problem): for example, the first sentence accuses pollution of 'our' rivers, which is a clear use of persuasive language. Apart from this, it is definitely not easy to read.
For this reason, I am about to mark the section as {{POV-check-section}}, so that it can be properly reviewed. This user's edit history suggests that, while not malicious, he/she clearly needs advice on how to prevent bias from entering his/her edits. Some-one who knows the correct policy for this might want to intervene. T23c (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I see that still nothing has been done about this, and since my previous comment one person has completely re-worded it, but still with possible NPOV problems, and one person has just deleted it. Does a tag exist to nominate a section as being in urgent need of help by experienced editors? T23c (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted this section because although it cites references, those references do not actually support the section, which appears to be completely fabricated.
- http://chemweb.ucc.ie/courses/EV4002/case_study_gsk.ppt is a study detailing how chemical discharge from factories is actually measured and monitored, citing GSK as an example company where these methods are in use. It does not suggest that there has been any wrongdoing on the part of GlaxoSmithKline.
- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/eutrophication is a simple definition, which has probably been inserted to look like a real citation for the point being made and should actually be a wikilink
- http://www.gsk.com/policies/GSK-on-hazardous-chemical-management.pdf is GSK's own policy which is hardly self-incriminating
- 87.113.10.191 (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for reverting your edit. You're right, the references don't support what is claimed. A look around google brings up the same claims repeated a few times, but nothing that could be considered a reliable reference. If you have the time it might be worth taking a look to see if you can see where the claims of illegal dumping and high carcinogenic output originate from. (I'll do the same if I have the time). Lowk (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
messed up formattin
half this page is in 4 narrow columns? very hard to read. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.87.127 (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
POV
A certain user 67.82.232.151 has a clear bias against pharmaceutical companies, and has single-handedly created the current ‘Controversies’ section. 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.
The user starts a ‘Controversy’ section on Paroxetine page (unsourced):
On Dec 22, 2006, a court decided that individuals who purchased Paxil(R) or Paxil CR(TM) (paroxetine) for a minor child may be eligible for benefits under a $63.8 million Proposed Settlement. The lawsuit alleges that pharmaceutical maker GlaxoSmithKline promoted Paxil(R) or Paxil CR(TM) for prescription to children and adolescents while withholding and concealing material information about the medication's safety and effectiveness for minors.
However, GSK certainly must have known of the drug's potential dangers since, in clinical trials, up to 50 percent of patients taking paroxetine experienced adverse withdrawals from the drug.
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. [4]
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. [5]
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. [6]
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… [7]
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. [8]
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. [9]
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. [10]
--70.17.209.58 09:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The section you tagged "totally disputed" was not completely written by user 67.82.232.151. Looking at the history shows the writing of that section has been a collaberative effort. user 67.82.232.151 hasn't edited this article for over two months, many changes have been made since then. The section is heavily referenced and that one former author's edits to other articles are not relivant to gauging its factual accuracy. I'm removing the "totally disputed" template from the section because its factual accuracy is not disputed. Neitherday 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's still disputable, but generally a NPOV. Whatever or who-ever changed the section, there are some elements that are assumed.Zelphi 16:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Added the sentence "There is yet no causational link between SSRI's and suicide and the addition of blackbox warning labels may is itself controversial " under Paroxetine controversy along with three references. Please advise if unnecessary or improper. Mwalla (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla
Hi Mwalla, I have no objection to what you added, and am just writing here to point out two distinctions: (1) SSRIs generally vs. paroxetine in particular, and (2) suicidal ideation and actual suicides. Your addition is reliably sourced and, as far as I know, correct. However, it does not eliminate the genuine controversy surrounding GSK and paroxetine. I did not realize prior to finding this discussion that so many of the "controversy" sections had been added by one anonymous URL (not me, BTW). I have no blanket opinion as to those other companies or their products - I assume they include some good and some bad. However, there is clearly a controversy about this specific company's handling of this specific product (see definition of controversy [11]), and the discussion on both pages has only demonstrated that further. In fact, if there has been an overreaction against SSRIs generally, it may result partly from GSK's mishandling of paroxetine (for which GSK was reprimanded even by the manufacturers' association, in addition to the litigation).TVC 15 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I've clarified slightly, so the sentence fits better with the paragraph.TVC 15 (talk) 08:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Size
I remember seeing somewhere recently on the wires that GSK is set to knock Pfizer off the No. 1 spot for Pharmaceutical Industry. [12]
Is this worth mentioning or a crystal ball violationInsert non-formatted text here
Not if Pfizer buys Wyeth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.179.168 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
List of Products
What do people think of moving the products list here to a seperate page (List of GlaxoSmithKline Products, perhaps?) Lowk (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Acquisition
Anybody wants to add GSK acquisition of Steifel and acquired UCB’s product portfolio across Africa, the Middle East, Asia Pacific and Latin America? Including Reliant Pharmaceuticals, etc? Perhaps we should have a section for “Acquisition”? What do u guys think? - Jay (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Major R&D centres
I don't think Harlow, UK can be counted as a major R&D centre any longer as the majority of the site has been closed down and the staff made redundant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/essex/8506431.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/04/glaxosmithkline-nils-pratley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.28.92.5 (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Other Company not mentioned
During 1973-1979 my Dad (who worked for Glaxo for over 30 years) started a company in Zurich in Switzerland called Sefton AG owned by Glaxo
I must also say that this 'history' of Glaxo (before it formed into where it is now) is rather lacking in detail... Here are some books on it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1044589/?page=1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014575/
Glaxo Milk bottle on BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/goNmmFUOQ0SoWAQUZUTyEQ
Veryscarymary (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)