From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United Kingdom  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Sweden (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed references[edit]

I have removed references to AstraZeneca not promoting "prevention" of breast cancer, as this was unreferrenced and the biggest causes of the cancer are inhertited defective tumour suppressor genes and somatic mutation, not environmental factors which could be controlled and lead to prevention. I believe placing this juxtaposed with the fact that AZ is a big producer of chemotherapeutic drugs used to treat the cancer was a POV comment upon a diliberate strategy by the company to prevent it being caught earlier and hence use their drugs. Since there was no reference for this (or indeed any evidence) it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) (31 May 2006)

Given that AZ produces known carcinogens, profits off of the treatment of cancer, and that the majority of cancers are linked to the environment...your comment seems highly skewed in favor of the company and against the complete body of information available relevant to this article. It would be POV to directly accuse AZ. It is also POV to remove legitimate facts that paint the company in an unrealistically positive light. Youngea (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Formal company name used as per this legal notice on their website. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 09:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see no compelling reason what so ever why the name of this article be extended to include the three letter abbreviation for public limited company. This type of fact belongs in the text of an article, not in its title. There might have been an excuse to introduce this if disambiguation had been necessary, but since that is not the case there is no reason not to use the simplest form.
Another point is the example of bicapitalization of what isn't even a compound word. Even if this is just one example of a contemporary trend in marketing, it still suggests that the name of the company should be read and pronounced "Astrazeneca", contrary to the common practice; Astra Zeneca. -- Mic 21:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • interesting point; I've added this to the article as an end-noted pronounciation guideline User:Ceyockey 11:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be an issue of contention. Many of the larger public limited companies have been moved away from the "plc" name (BAE SYSTEMS, Safeway, mmO2, Reuters). I would agree that this fits in with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. I have started a discusison on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Public_limited_companies. ed g2stalk 22:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


This is a total POV page. Will edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) (1 Nov 2006)

This anon editor essentially removed all negative statements about the company from the article - a frankly POV deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Breat Cancer Awareness Month[edit]

I am adding a comment about Breast Cancer Awareness Month's lack of focus on prevention in the criticism section. Source is given. Don't remove it unless you give a valid reason. -Fendersmasher 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And where is your assumption of good faith, Fender? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain the AGF issue so we're on the same wavelength. -Fendersmasher 19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith would mean assuming that editors will behave in a manner consistent to what you have stated pre-emptively - that they will not remove something without reason and that they will explain the reason for removal at least in their edit summary if not on this page. You've made an assumption that editors will behave otherwise. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. My comment may have been somewhat unfair to other editors. I'm still new to editing WP, please excuse. -Fendersmasher 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have appended the NBCAM to include additional information available about tamoxifen as a known carcinogen, and have provided a 3rd party citation for the conflict of interest producing a lack of focus on prevention and environmental carcinogens. Youngea (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Recommend removing this section. It's mostly POV at worst, but at best uses one sided citations. One of the main citations is this one: Clearly, this is one side of the story and this article itself has some dubious citations as well along with some "facts" that aren't accurate including "in a March 8, 1996, article in The New York Times because their stock "was soaring" after they merged with Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy, two of Switzerland's big drug makers." AZ merged with Astra. I would say that this disqualifies this citation and therefore the related content.

The comments about AZ and NBCAM are inaccurate and don't give the full story. The listing fails to mention that the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Cancer Society, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (among others) are all sponsors in addition to AZ. These highly respected groups would presumably have a lot to say about what this organization does. The comment that NBCAM does not focus on prevention or early detection is also inaccurate based on cursory look at their site (

Finally, tamoxifen is a carcinogen (the state of california lists it as one as well), however, the fair balance (which Wikipedia strives to include) is this "Tamoxifen alone is probably already saving 20,000 lives a year. The present results suggest that the numbers of lives saved could be doubled if tamoxifen was much more widely used."

All of this taken together to me demonstrates someone posting biased information without presenting the full case.Hess411 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)hess411

Free Medicines Ad[edit]

The most recent contribution, under the heading "Free Medicines..." seems like an ad to me. It's just needless info provided from AZ's website. Should this be removed. -Fendersmasher 17:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is very much an ad and it should be removed.

  • My thought is that it should be significantly revised to indicate that AZ, like all other major pharma, has such a program. I'm surprised to see that there is not an article on patient assistance programs as a topic. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I recuse myself from further editing this article, except for reverting vandalism, as I am employed by the company.

Reference / Note for consideration[edit]

new AstraZeneca controversy: Wikipedia self-editing (August 2007)[edit]

AstraZeneca has been mentioned in several news articles in recent days (See the London Times here, in an article picked up by Fox News; Pharmalot here, and a good blogger description here, among others). The firm is caught up in the scandal stemming from the invention of a Wikipedia data-mining service (from Cal Tech graduate student Virgil Griffith) allowing Internet users the ability to discover which companies are self-editing in embarrassing/incriminating ways on Wikipedia. I had already noted sockpuppet tendencies on the Seroquel talk page on 16 July 2007, before this scandal broke, and mentioned the possibility of a pharmaceutical self-edit.

An anonymous Internet user discovered that AstraZeneca apparently deleted references to its own safety information. AstraZeneca has said it is investigating itself, but also questions whether IP addresses can be faked... Seroquel has been a problem drug for AstraZeneca in various ways. I believe the Seroquel issue should be introduced to the AstraZeneca page as a new controversy, in addition to the current Wikipedia scandal. Sandover 06:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained ragged section removal[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) raggedly deleted the entire section regarding the 'Controversy over Nexium' section without explanation either on the talk page or in edit summary; this is the only visible edit from this IP address. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I brought back the sections that had been edited out, particularly the controversy-related ones. Added some detail from a German magazine regarding Nexium.Duagloth 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The user claims removing POV, it may be worht having a good look at the article and see if there is any basis for that. From what I can see it all looks farly unbiased to me though. RaseaC (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Most of the ELs are not proper - see WP:EL. They should be changed into footnotes within the article or deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversies section[edit]

As per suggestions above, I have included references to the "self-edit" controversy. A third link caused the entire section to automatically be deleted: [1] so I have left it out for the time being. Although it is fully cited and appears to be very detailed and clear -- are there exceptions to including blogs or do we just never include blogs in wikipedia entries regardless of the quality of information they provide? Youngea (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I also edited out some of the sloppiness in some of the other controversies (mostly sloppy citation format), but have applied some templates as there still seems to be work to do to make the information coherent and readable. I think one of the sections is attempting to talk about the controversy in AstraZeneca attempting to use an anti-psychotic to treat depression, but it doesn't read very well as of yet.Youngea (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New User (CHCollins): In my opinion, the controversy section is unbalanced, even though factual. Its very length, level of detail given to the allegations, and lack of viewpoints that support the company, give the impression that the section exists primarily to discredit the company. I do not work for AZ (or any other company for that matter) but the tone does not seem "encyclopedic", rather it feels more like a pharma-company complaint page. Just my thoughts as a casual reader. (By the way, the Bristol-Myers-Squibb page also seemed to have a good deal of discrediting content, but there I thought it came across more neutrally than here.) July 9 2011. (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained controversial modifications/deletions[edit]

New user Stephenr410 deleted parts of the controversy section without explanation. I have reverted the edits, and am currently NOT assuming good faith from this user until further explanation. Youngea (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Add to the the list for deleting the entire "self-editing" section without explanation.Youngea (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC) and NRAPA33 provided dubious deletion reasons and no prior discussion. I am assuming good faith from them for at least providing a reason, but have reverted the edits and requested that they enter in discussion here. I am seeking assistance with this matter as to how to proceed, as it is very definitely a clear pattern developing.Youngea (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people who has deleted the text that you seem to consider controversial from the AstraZenica page. First, I would like to make it known that I am not in connection which AstraZenica, I have never been in contact with the corporation, and I do not work for them. The following is my reasoning as to deleting the section. First off, after reviewing several Pharmaceutical pages on this website, I found that no other company had this information on their profile. In fact, none of them even mention safety concerns or controversies. I feel in order to keep Wikipedia neutral and fair to all companies this section should be deleted, why should we individually attack AstrZenica and allow all other companies to go unmarked. Second, this information is common knowledge and doesn't need to be discussed. Also, there is no verifyable reason for it to be present. Finally, there is no proof that AstraZenica itself removed the text, but rather another user hacking the company's contacts or someone acting as though they are connected with AstraZenica could easily have commited the deed. Unless sufficient proof is shown that it was indeed AstraZenica that removed the message should not be displayed! Please people let it as it, leave the comment off, there is no viable reasoning to its display and it simply isn't of a neutral tone and attacks a company that may not even have done any wrong. --NRAPA33 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I edited the first sentence of the sexual harrassment controversy section - Astra USA Inc. was not a subsidiary of AstraZeneca at the time of the scandal and instead was its own company. -- (unregistered user), 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


I have attempted a minor clean up. In particular I have changed all references to reflist format and removed all dead links. There is a lot more to do - you can help Dormskirk (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Section on antimalarials[edit]

I'm not seeing any references for the section titled "Malaria Drugs". (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Executive Officer Section[edit]

"Brennan is paid $1,574,144 for his role as chief executive officer"

so? Is that supposed to make the reader believe his salary is not deserved? you should look up the payscale for University of California medical educators (EG doctors who teach at the Med schools). 20+ get paid 2 million dollars a year. over 100 get paid more than 1 million. do you think that the combined total number of patients (and patients of the students who were educated by these doctors) would compare with the number of people benefiting from pharmaceuticals marketed by ANY large pharmaceutical company? "yeah, but they hurt many more" do you think that they WANTED TO HURT THOSE PEOPLE? you would be beyond naive and insane to believe so. (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Der SpeigelStern Reference[edit]

Hi Petrarchan47,

Why do you think this is notable? Anyone can make an accusation, but after a few years if the accusation is not corroborated, it is just that. What is worse in this case is that accusation is not notable, as there do not seem to be English language references to it.

I'm additionally concerned that this reference is being brought in not to introduce Angell's opinion, for which it is a reliable source, but the idea that the trials were "fudged", which is a statement about a healthcare related issue. It does not meed MEDRS standards, and is contradicted by several meta analyses that concluded that esomeprazole is more effective. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting MEDRS as this is not a claim about health, but politics. The claim that these accusations need to be printed in English, or are too old is simply not supported by the guidelines and seem more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is positioned under the "controversy" section, not health claims, and is notable because of who made the claim (Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine and a lecturer in social medicine at the Harvard Medical School). Why would a WP reader not want this information, and why would you claim it needs to meet MEDRS? petrarchan47tc 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Instead of using presumably comparable doses [of each drug], the company's scientists used Nexium in higher dosages. They compared 20 and 40mg Nexium with 20mg Prilosec. With the cards having been marked in that way, Nexium looked like an improvement- which however was only small and shown in only two of the three studies" This is not a statement of opinion, it is a statement of fact and one that is taken from a primary, non-MEDRS compliant source. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: I suppose we are both pushing the limits both here and at the antidepressant article on how many times we can revert each other and make conflicting edits before an admin steps in. I propose we make a list of issues and take it over for Third Opinion. FOr this list I propose the following:

  • Is a speech given by Dr. Angell and recorded in Stern a reliable source for the material that it is being used to support in the AZ article? I will argue that it is being brought in not to describe a controversy but to bring in statements of fact for which there is no reliable source. I will further argue that if it is a controversy, it is not a notable one, as controversy requires more than one participant, and if it were notable there would be English language articles describing the issues.
  • Anticipating that you will object to my most recent edit, is a tort lawyer website a reliable source for infomrmation about AZ's behavior and legal history?
  • Regarding the antidepressent conflict, are NICE and the FDA reliable sources for medical information?

We could do this on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but it does not seem to get much traffic these days. The Third Opinion board guarantees a response. Let me know if there is anything you want to add to this. Best wishes Formerly 98 (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO, if this is brought to a Noticeboard, I'd like to see you stick to the question at hand rather than discuss what you anticipate what Petrarchan might think about the lawyer website (where I, incidentally, think you are correct), and bring other conflicts into the picture. I suppose that I could mention that you also believe that MEDRS applies to bee health as well, but it is not in question here. That said, I have not followed the antidepressant controversy and could well be wrong on that... Gandydancer (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Gandy, This was a well-intentioned invitation to P to work together to craft a posting to Third Opinion. I had no intention of unilaterally posting anything without his input

Also, could you take a look at the note I left on your home page? Many thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC).

You left a note re this article on Petrarchan's talk page which I do follow. I came to this article out of curiosity. Is there something wrong with that? Also, re using Third Opinion, though I have only one experience with Third Opinion it was my impression that a matter of this nature would be better brought elsewhere. Gandydancer (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gandy. Though I suppose this is something for P and myself to discuss, what are your thoughts on the best board to take it to? Formerly 98 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what "number" opinion this is, but I saw the discussion, and I just made an edit to the paragraph, trying to remove some of the arguments that were made in Wikipedia's voice, as opposed to the source's voice. I think that it's reasonable to include this material here, although I'd like to see another source added, if it exists, presenting the company's view on the matter. I don't see it as a MEDRS issue so much as an NPOV one. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll accept the outside opinion offered by Trypto. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that you found it helpful. But I really don't mind if anyone else disagrees with me about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No other source has appeared. This is undue & not neutral in my view, and should be removed if no additional sourcing exists. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I am concerned on two levels: first, the notability of a "controversy" for which no English language references can be found. There is a second example of this in the Seroquel section noting that the clinical trials were performed 45% in developing countries, but most sales occur in the West. The source is is Swedish, and once again this "controversy" does not seem to have been sufficiently widespread to have English sources. And its kind of a silly criticism, as much of the reason the sales are mostly in the West is because prices are lower in the developing world.
Lastly, the Angell reference violates MEDRS, as it has obviously been added to present the case that the clinical trial design for esomeprazole was inadequate. And an interview with a longstanding pharma critic published in a German news magazine is obviously not a MEDRS compliant source. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a lame reference for interesting content. Angell published this criticism in her book "the truth about drug companies" pp 78-79, three years before the Stern article (here, if that google books link works). The interesting question is how this criticism should be handled. i will look to see if this criticism has been picked up by anyone else. although Angell was once very mainstream (chief editor of NEJM) she has made herself pretty fringey (i've heard her talk, and she engages in some pretty exaggerated rhetoric anymore) ... i think we should only keep this specific criticism if other credible sources have validated it. like i said, i will look. Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
When I looked into this previously, I noted the following issues, though I don't recall the sources:
  • Astra ran the trial at the highest FDA approved dose of omeprazole. They could hardly have used a higher dose in a trial being conducted for purposes of regulatory approval
  • The R enantiomer of omeprazole is metabolized by CYPD19 (?), which is expressed at widely varying levels. About 3% of the population are "poor metabolizers", and these persons experience 5x higher exposure when recieving the racemic drug. This presumably figures into the maximum dose of the racemate, but I have not found a source substantiating this.
  • If they can dose the pure S isomer twice as high and do so safely, what is the problem? The goal of any comparative trial is not to provide a "fair" comparison of the relative potency of the two drugs at the same dose, but to compare the efficacy of each at the maximum safe dose.
  • That being said, it seems well established that for the majority of patients, esomeprazole offers little advantage. There is a small subset that does better on the single isomer, but not a large enough group to justify its sales.
In summary, I would say there are some very legit criticisms to be offered about the widespread use of Nexium over cheaper generics. But this particular criticism is ill-considered in my view. And the sourcing is a clear violation of MEDRS.Formerly 98 (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
that is a lovely analysis and while it is good for all us to see that there is some validity to the criticism in your eyes, that is WP:OR and so ultimately not relevant. :) We need some validating sources... Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course. If I had found references substantiating the very common sense argument that one does not conduct comparative trials at identicial doses, but at maximum tolerated doses, it would already be in the article! Formerly 98 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Though I think this is a very good essay whose reasoning should be taken into account. I certainly would not put that OR into an article, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't apply common sense and not include nonsensical material in the article just because we have a reliable source that someone, somewhere, said it. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)