Talk:Gilead Sciences

Hyperlinks To Misinformation...

The hyperlink to Micheal Riordan is wrong. The statement says he was a 29-year old doctor when the company was founded, and that the company was found in 1987. The hyperlinked article is for a Micheal Riordan who was an attorney and police officer and who died in 1967.

Whistleblower Lawsuit

After reading an article on Ars Technica I jumped straight here to see if there was any mention of the whistleblower lawsuit related to contaminated emtricitabine made in China and there was none. Isn't this relevant enough to be recorded here? The best news article I found about it is this one here, but I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's customs and protocols on editing an article (I just created my account after years of just reading it). Marshal banana 1983 (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Potential RS

Out of an abundance of caution, I am adding content to the talk page before editing the article directly: By March 2020, Gilead Sciences (GILD) was making a substantial profit mainly because of its $17 billion HIV franchise and its HCV portfolio, which includes HCV drugs, such as Sovaldi and Harvoni, according to a Morningstar article. The sale of these two HCV drugs peaked at more than $19 billion in 2015. Gilead had acquired Sovaldi when it purchased Pharmasset in November 2011 for $11.2 billion. $11 billion Pharmasset deal brought key HCV drug Sovaldi. Sovaldi and Harvoni (a combination of Sovaldi and ledipasvir) peaked at more than $19 billion in sales in 2015. HCV portfolio. Both HIV and HCV medications are inexpensive to manufacture and easy to market.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

By 24 January 2020, Gilead had provided remdesivir during the 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak for a "small number of patients" in collaboration with Chinese medical authorities for studying its effects. Later in January 2020, the first US patient received remdesivir in Snohomish County, Washington, and a 5 March 2020 article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reported that patient showed improvement after taking Remdesivir.

By late January, Chinese medical researchers involved in exploratory research in which they were considering a selection of 30 drug candidates. At that time, remdesivir was one of three drugs, along with chloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir, that seemed to have "fairly good inhibitory effects" on SARS-CoV-2 at the cellular level. They requested permission to start clinical testing were submitted.

The government-run Wuhan Institute of Virology, a member of the "elite Chinese Academy of Sciences" and the Military Medicine Institute applied to patent Gilead's remdesivir in China on 21 January to treat COVID-19. Wuhan Institute is located in the city of Wuhan—the center of the COVID-19 outbreak in China. This could fuel "conflict over technology policy that helped trigger Washington’s tariff war with Beijing." On 29 January, the Wuhan Institute applied for a "military laboratory". An institute statement from the Wuhan Institute of Virology "acknowledged there were "intellectual property barriers" but said it acted to "protect national interests." On 31 January, access to Wuhan was suspended by the Chinese government. Under the World Trade Organization rules China has the right to "declare an emergency and compel a company to license a patent to protect the public."

At a WHO-China Joint Mission on COVID-19 press conference on 24 February evening in Beijing, the Assistant Director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), Bruce Aylward, said that, "There’s only one drug right now that we think may have real efficacy. And that's Remdesivir". In response, by the end of February, Gilead's stocks had risen by $16 billion.

In a 4 March 2020 article in Nature, scientists from the Wuhan Institute and the Military Medicine Institute reported that they "found both Remdesivir and Chloroquine, which is used to treat malaria, to be an effective way to inhibit the coronavirus."

In a 6 March article, Reuters said that the Wuhan Institute "would temporarily drop its patent claims if the opportunity arose to collaborate with foreign pharmaceutical firms to fight the epidemic."

The official Xinhua News Agency said "clinical trials of the drug, remdesivir, would start" in China on 6 February 2020. In a 14 February article, FiercePharmacy said that Chinese drugmaker BrightGene had successfully "mass produced remdesivir's active ingredient" and was producing finished doses. BrightGene said the "final marketing requires a license from Gilead, the patent holder.

According to a 11 March 2020 The Washington Post article, while remdesivir had successfully blocked the "Ebola virus in laboratories and in animal experiments", researchers decided in August to stop using it on human patients because "it did such a bad job extending survival in humans compared to two of the other treatments." A 2016 article in the journal Nature , said that a group of scientists had found that the antiviral drug that Gilead had developed—Remdesivir—had been effective against the Ebola virus disease in rhesus monkeys. In a 6 February 2020 Associated Press article, Gilead said that said it had applied for a for a "Chinese patent" on the "use of remdesivir against coronaviruses" in 2016 and was still "waiting for a decision."

A June 2017 article in the journal Science Translational Medicine reported that remdesivir was "shown to be active" against SARS and MERS in animals in laboratory tests.

Statsnews reported on the March 2020 RBC Capital Markets analysts in response to their investigation of data from a study undertaken by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Covid-19 response team on the first 12 patients with COVID-19 in the United States. The RBC analysts said that Remdesivir produced "mixed results" with "less than 50/50 possibility that the drug is ultimately proven effective." The analysts mentioned concerns about Remdesivir's side effects.

In February, China began to use chloroquine phosphate, a "structural analogue of quinine, originally extracted from the bark of cinchona trees" to treat COVID-19 patients.

References

Oceanflynn (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: Hmm no replies, that's odd; and your stuff does not seem to have been incorporated in the article. Did you simply move on to other endeavours? —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Veterinary edits

This revert was justified because the IP editor seems to be on a soapbox about Gilead not following through on R&D and marketing of a drug for a cat disease. The sources are not about Gilead's R&D, which is focused to drug development for human diseases, shown here in the pipeline summary. The IP's edits and sources are WP:OFFTOPIC, and appear to be WP:OR. Zefr (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You may not believe this issue has anything to do with Gilead. The Atlantic, a highly notable news source, disagrees with you, and the company's inaction in the matter -- well-discussed in the article -- is absolutely ontopic in a Criticism section.[1] I am at a complete loss to figure out how these cites constitute OR, or what your basis for finding them inappropriate to the subject might be. Ravenswing 03:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Gilead history and pipeline show that its focus is on human medicines, not those for animals. It's common in drug development by biotech or pharma companies to have a technology overlapping into another disease indication that may be useful other than for the original human disease target, and to not develop it for those secondary uses. For a drug like remdesivir, there may be numerous overlapping disease indications outside the focus of human antiviral activity. This topic is neither a "controversy" nor a criticism. GS evidently chose not to pursue the cat indication, a reasonable and expected decision for a company with multiple human disease technologies on specific budgets. The Atlantic article is a cat owner-POV piece, clearly showing there was no broad publishing history or scientific consensus on using GS-441524 for feline infectious peritonitis (no WP:SCIRS reviews or company statements). The content and scientific sources cited in this section are WP:SYNTH - the IP editor is drawing conclusions that GS avoided an opportunity to help cats and their owners. That market is so small it must have been an easy decision to not spend resources on it. Zefr (talk)

Sorry, but I see SYNTH going the other way: you do not get to airily dismiss an Atlantic piece because you neither like its premise or conclusions, nor can you credibly advance an essay in detailing how things ought to be done, nor do you get to blame the IP for the conclusions the Atlantic article draws -- "Despite the success, Gilead refused to license GS-441524 for use in cats," "According to Pedersen, Gilead worried that the cat research could impede the approval process for remdesivir." -- nor do you get to assume Gilead's rationale absent actual sources stipulating the same. (Feel free, of course, to include any source you can find detailing Gilead's rebuttal.) No kidding Gilead focuses on human medicines, but that's neither relevant nor the point; criticism sections in Wikipedia articles discuss sourced criticisms, whether they involve the subjects' core business/affairs or whether the subjects appreciate the criticisms.

But hey, if you'd like other voices on it, I'll be happy to ping some of the other ANI frequent flyers for their takes. Ravenswing 06:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here. (1) Is there acceptable evidence that remdesivir or its active ingredient GS-441524 is effective in cats as described in the article? (2) Is the speculation as to the reason in the Atlantic piece worth including? My personal view is "yes" to (1) and "no" to (2) - without further sources, it's just that, speculation, and not encyclopedic. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure that any of the sources quite supports the statement that there is a controversy over this. The Atlantic story describes it as “standard industry practice”. Jones et al. mentions Gilead discontinuing development as a cat medication, “possibly due to the desire to continue” development of human medicines, but doesn’t mention any controversy. The other three are just about efficacy and safety and as far as I can see don’t mention Gilead halting development. As far as efficacy goes, the results look promising, but the sources don’t seem to me to meet WP:MEDRS; three of them are small primary studies, and the other is the results of a survey of cat owners. Brunton (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This topic is trivial and unwarranted for the article. Likely, it is known to only a small percentage of cat owners, and was not a concern for Gilead or the biotech community, as there are no GS press releases or WP:SCIRS reviews supporting its scientific or industrial significance, rendering it as WP:UNDUE. As there is no consensus to support including it, the section is now deleted. Zefr (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would Gilead Bioscience market that it won't allow release of a redemesevir analog to grieving pet owners...there is another article highlighting the controversy...https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&Id=9235842&useobjecttypeid=10&fromVINNEWSASPX=1 including direct letters to their board. They are aware, they keep saying they will release it, and they won't...that makes a controversy. There was a social media account that got shut down multiple times for importing the drug for use in cats...this is the definition of a controversy...because of a potential COI with Zefr, I'm happy to DM another editor with more information to validate this. Also, you can't have consensus when you have one person who is being intractable...that by definition prevents a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Another news article...https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/08/04/gilead-remdesivir-covid19-coronavirus-pandemic/...and another https://news.vin.com/default.aspx?pid=210&Id=10015949 ... https://www.dvm360.com/view/from-fatal-to-curable-to-complicated-an-update-on-treating-feline-infectious-peritonitis and another ...https://abc7.com/cats-covid-coronavirus-cure/6253361/ ... do I need to cite more? We can have a scientific argument about the studies like ivermectin for COVID, but the studies are much cleaner statistically, and people are still using the meds despite Gilead's stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This one from Business Insider...how many more do I need to cite from highly reputable news outlets to demonstrate a controversy exists. https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-treatment-cats-fip-sold-10k-black-market-2020-6...and another one... https://onezero.medium.com/desperate-cat-owners-are-buying-illegal-cat-drugs-on-facebooks-black-market-cd40bfe90997 as well as editorials... https://brantsandpatents.com/en/news/the-curious-case-of-remdesivir-for-treatment-of-feline-coronavirus

Chiming in as someone who recently expanded the criticism section (thus this showing up on my watchlist) to say I also think that given the existing coverage, demonstrated above, the section is indeed appropriate to include. The controversy around GS-441524 also links to remdesivir, according to The Guardian, insofar as activist groups have "accused Gilead of choosing to develop remdesivir, which is much further along in the clinical trial process than GS-441524, because it would remain under patent longer and therefore produce more profit." (link)(before WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 21:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC))

Reminder to those relying on news reports to support criticism or controversy that the talk page is not a news site, blog or forum for airing out "pet" complaints, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page is for discussion to improve the article based on secondary WP:RS sources published in the scientific or industrial literature, which do not exist for this minor topic, WP:WEIGHT. Zefr (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zefr: I was about to say that I had updated the article to include numerous other sources covering the controversy, and was about to add The Atlantic article as well, but it appears that has been reverted. What other sort of sources would you like to see? Medical journal articles specifically talking about the controversy? I did have on in a peer-reviewed veterinary journal that discussed the rise of the black market in response to Gilead's decision. 22:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

To follow up, I am a bit confused by the argument that sources published in the scientific or industrial literature... do not exist for this minor topic for two reasons — first, there is indeed coverage, including in Animals, a peer reviewed journal, The Atlantic, a dedicated veterinary industry news outlet's two-part series, and Business Insider (in addition to op-eds and other such coverage, which are obviously less relevant). Obviously, the controversy is far less potent than, say, Gilead's handling of Truvada, because these are cats, not people, but that coverage is still there and seems to be at least deserving of a paragraph, no? Second, I'm somewhat unclear about your specification of "scientific or industrial literature" specifically — are you precluding other forms of reliable sources in more general media? If so, why?WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Re-reading above, I think the issue boils down to Likely, it is known to only a small percentage of cat owners, and was not a concern for Gilead or the biotech community, as there are no GS press releases or WP:SCIRS reviews supporting its scientific or industrial significance, rendering it as WP:UNDUE. VINN and The Atlantic both cite Facebook groups with thousands of members growing to support what Business Insider headlined as a "thriving black market" for the compound. The VIN articles specifically note that Niels Pedersen "warned" Gilead about the potential for a black market and details the anger of some cat owners (including one shareholder, the sister of Newt Gingrich) at the company. Regardless of whether GS-whatever does actually represent a promising treatment —I have no opinion on the matter and am not a medical specialist by any means — the coverage suggests that large numbers of people do think so and they are turning to black markets to acquire the drug for their cats. They, and some veterinarians, are angry at Gilead, as is reported in sources like VIN, BI, and The Atlantic, and that seems to be more than enough to establish that the controversy does exist. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

This revert was justified because all but one of the sources are news reports. The one scientific article here is woeful as a scant survey published in an MDPI journal suspected of being predatory (i.e., poor or absent editorial practices, or authors paying the journal for publication); WP:CITEWATCH. If this were a significant technology issue deserving of mention in the article, GS would have more visibility about it and there would be WP:SCIRS reviews on the topic - I found no rigorous reviews; here are other primary studies from PubMed. The Atlantic article is an op-ed; news and op-eds are not reliable sources for scientific content, WP:SCIRS. Wait for more discussion and building of consensus one way or the other. Without cat-owner and news sensationalism speculating about GS motivations to not develop a cat medication, this topic doesn't have sufficient substance for the article about a major biotech company. The place for further discussion is at the FIP article and talk page. Zefr (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I'm going to continue this here rather than at the FIP page because I do believe this is relevant specifically to Gilead and its behavior for a few reasons. First, WP:UNDUE rejects completely only those viewpoints "held by an extremely small minority". Now, of the people who have heard of this compound, it seems that a sizable number — including a leading veterinary medicine professor and plenty of concerned cat owners — consider it worth a shot at the very least. The controversy is over Gilead's very refusal to consider doing the additional research required for veterinary authorization, that's the entire point. Whether or not GS-whatever is a cure for FIP is irrelevant; as far as this page is concerned, we need to simply establish that there is at least some notable controversy around Gilead's treatment of GS-whatever when it comes to FIP. To that end, we have several sources:

• First, the Atlantic article. I'm not entirely sure why this could be considered an op-ed; it's by a staff writer under their Science section and without any such designation. It has original reporting and presumably went through The Atlantic's factchecking and editorial processes. The article represents direct evidence that there is a sizable number of people unhappy with Gilead over its decision, even though the thinking is industry standard.
• Second, the two-part series by Lisa Wogen, a reporter for the veterinary industry outlet VIN News. It's not the Times, but certainly seems reliable for sources related to veterinary issues. Another article by Wogen describes "a cadre of veterinarians and cat owners have lobbied the biotechnology company to bring it to market for veterinary use." From Wogen/VIN's independent, reliable, secondary coverage we can conclude that there exists some subset of veterinarians and cat owners who a) know about GS-whatever as a potential treatment for FIP and b) are mad at Gilead for not further investigating the drug to get it authorized by the FDA for cats.
• Third, the evolution of the above pressure from vets/cat owners to Public Citizen, a major, national advocacy group. Again, whether or not we think the compound is effective, the publicized letter (mentioned in The Atlantic and other pieces, available here), which deals more with COVID, also makes noet of Gilead's refusal to continue research re: FIP.

We can show then that a) there is a very limited amount of scientific research that the compound is effective in treating FIP; b) that some researchers and activists have pushed for Gilead to seek veterinary authorization for it; c) Gilead's refusal has created a large black market for the compound; and d) some activists and vets quoted in the various sources in this discussion thus far, as well as other opinion-havers, believe it is because Gilead is prioritizing profit over saving their cats. This is not fringe, and certainly should not be front and center of the article, nor mentioned in the lead, but I am struggling to see why this is something that cannot be allowed a paragraph under the relevant section with appropriate acknowledgment that Gilead's purported motive (to avoid data that might interfere with remdesivir approval for humans) is standard industry practice. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What you have just outlined is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH, which we should not be writing into an encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Calling all MDPI journals predatory is the definition of snobbery and overstates the current acknowledgement as to which journals are actually predatory...yes, I would love to say I only publish in Nature and Science...but are we saying the same about ACS Omega now that failed journal articles from ACS typically get filtered towards their open access journal? Are we calling PLOS predatory? Getting judgmental about the scientific journal unless it has a high retraction rate (aka Science and Nature ironically) is asking for selective editing by people with significant conflicts of interest. And for the record, I'm giving a Pharma Conference Talk and I plan on bringing this exact example up at the conference as to an ethical quandry that COVID has sparked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You're going to have to elaborate, because what I see is a controversy that has specifically attracted criticism from named activists and veterinarians while covered in several reliable sources. Your reply to Ravenswing suggests that your issue here is that you think the controversy is silly, and that Gilead is acting within its rights. That is irrelevant to whether or not the controversy exists and is notable.

To that end, here is a proposed rewrite of the section "GS-44152 development." I welcome any changes to this that we feel are appropriate:

Gilead holds the patent for GS-441524, a nucleoside similar to remdesivir. Limited studies suggest the compound is effective in treating the otherwise highly fatal feline infectious peritonitis, but Gilead opted against pursuing authorization for veterinary use of the compound, fearing that it might interfere with the company's effort to have remdesivir approved for human use. (It was originally intended to be used against Ebola.) The practice of avoiding additional research for drugs while seeking FDA approval is common in the pharmaceuticals industry. Nevertheless, some veterinarians and concerned cat owners have criticized the company's refusal and lobbied the company to reverse its stance. Without legal access to the drug in the United States, some owners of cats with FIP began turning to unauthorized suppliers of the compound for treatment, leading to the development of a black market. The buyers generally source the compound from unauthorized producers in China. Niels Pedersen, the researcher who demonstrated evidence of the effectiveness of GS-441524 against FIP in initial studies at UC Davis, has criticized holdup of the drug's approval for veterinary use by Gilead.

References

WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that is a fair and balanced re-write. Thanks for that excellent re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zefr, my biggest issue with your editing style is that you seem to have drawn a conclusion and will not led any amount of peer reviewed literature and/or news sites dissuade you from that opinion. Content contributors cannot hit a target if it moves...if there are issues that you believe need to be addressed, then they should be something that is a clear litmus test and/or something obtainable through increased sourcing. It also dissuades new content creators from joining the discussion and adding valuable content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Another article discussing the controversy from a blog at Columbia University addressing legal and patent issues: https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/stlr/blog/view/314. Also you do realize that the page for the GS drug starts off with Gilead and its unwillingness to allow its medications to be used for veterinary use... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS-441524 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article published by Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113518301603. This is by SAGE Publications...: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1098612X19825701 . This is not a single journal article in a potentially predatory journal (although MDPI has become more commonly accepted in recent years...I am someone who frequently publishes in ACS Journals, MDPI, Royal Society of Chemistry, Elsevier... — Preceding unsigned comment added by

Can we get a tally of who thinks the edit is worthwhile versus not? I'm tired of getting this listed below.

Also, none of what I put in the actual edits was "personal research". I'm simply stating that it is an interesting topic that I learned about and think others should know about too...and that suppressing it here won't make this topic go away and goes against the premise of open-access encyclopedic knowledge.

Getting threats that my behavior is out-of-line every time I edit the page because of Zefr (see below) makes this personal and requires further outside arbitration.

71.213.189.18 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Gilead Sciences. Also for editing warring, WP:WAR, WP:3RR. Zefr (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Gilead Sciences. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. There is no WP:COI concerning the company or any of my editing. You are unwilling or unable to engage objectively for WP:NPOV on a minor pet issue of low/no relevance to the Gilead article, WP:UNDUE. Go to the FIP page and do your editing there. Zefr (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Zefr, your rationales are increasingly specious. First off, stop pushing the nonsensical notion that WP:SYNTH is involved. The editors here aren't coming to their own conclusions; they are quoting the conclusions that the sources are making. SYNTH holds that "Do not ... imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." That there is an issue is explicitly stated by the sources.

  Secondly, and more bewildering, you seem to feel that because the subject is a biosciences company that the only sources permissible are those from the medical industry. This bizarre notion is unsupported by any guideline or policy on Wikipedia. What highly reliable news sources such as The Atlantic or Business Insider report concerning the subject are valid for inclusion, whether or not they're focused on the subject's core competency, or on issues for which you would prefer they be focused. Tossing MEDRS around is specious: the section does not address, nor sets forth, biomedical information.

  Finally, you do not own this article. You do not get to dictate what areas pertaining to the subject are permissible for inclusion, and I'm at an utter loss as to why you are digging in so hard here, other than you having some ulterior motive or agenda. Ravenswing 22:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• A reminder for all to play nice :) I don't think it's fair to assume ulterior motives, nor do I think it's fair to assert synthesis etc. without further elaboration. We're all on the same team here, even if we have opposing views on this particular topic. (insert Kum-ba-yah.mp3) <3 WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Veterinary Meds

Zefr, since you are the only one insistent that this isn't viable content, please provide criteria that need to be addressed. I'm happy to remove it permanently and prevent this fight if and only if you provide criteria that cannot be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Zefr that this material is of marginal relevance to the article (which I think needs considerable overall trimming – this is a general encyclopedia). The article should be about the company; obviously major drugs of relevance should be included, but many details specific to those drugs should be put in the drug article, not the company article. So take up Zefr's suggestion to consider this for the FIP article. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• To which my answer is this: the controversy here is not over the drug, but about Gilead's actions (or lack of action). Ravenswing 22:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: are there reliable sources that show this is a general feature of the company's behaviour, or is it specific to this drug? If the former, then, sure, it belongs here. If the latter, it does not, in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I'm not sure there's another example of something this specific, i.e, a drug being potentially extremely useful for animals and drawing ire of said animals' owners when not developed as such, but other well-sourced sections of the article as written detail controversies over Gilead's delays in development of human drugs. As The Atlantic article notes, however, the practice of avoiding additional research into a drug while seeking its approval is not uncommon. I am unsure if this is also true in cases where there is reason to believe the extra research ("extra research" here being catch-all for what goes into FDA veterinary authorization, in this case) would entail plausible medical benefit. This is a bit of extrapolation on my part, be warned: the core of the controversy seems to be that Gilead would (possibly? likely?) develop the drug along further lines if there were other potential avenues for human use, but because the research only points to use in FIP, Gilead has not done so, which is where the criticism of some veterinarians and cat-lovers has come in. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And while we may all aspire to complete disaffectedness anyways, I did take like twenty minutes write that above sourced paragraph, but I do want to make it a point to say that if consensus is reached against including it or similar in the article here, I am fine letting it die peacefully in the talk section. c'est la wiki-vie. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Irrelevant. There are many, many issues which put organizations into the news that have little to nothing to do with their mission statements: environmental, social, governmental ... even purely incidental or pop culture-oriented. Here we have a situation involving one of Gilead's best-known drugs, and that furthermore is reported not by blogposts or ephemeral pop culture outfits but by some of the most respected and reliable media sources extant. Now yes, no doubt Gilead's PR department would greatly prefer that this issue stay out of the public eye and off of Wikipedia. I'm just at a loss as to figure why we would want to do so. Ravenswing 01:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: positively my last word on this. I do not want to keep this issue off of Wikipedia. I just think that the article is sufficiently long and complex as it is, without adding another chunk that could be very briefly summarized here and expanded, with reliable sources, at the drug article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@petercoxhead I agree that simplicity (1-2 lines) and brevity is likely the best policy here with a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GS-441524, referencing the drug and controversy, where it is discussed in further detail. This section became really long and drawn out in response to other criticisms. I also agree that much of the page could be further edited to help with brevity and focus. As for why it should be on their page and not simply on the drugs page...It is another example of Gilead choosing to protect profits at all costs (see Discovy/Truvada controversy). There is also no other drug being withheld that either my wife (a pharmacist) or myself (a PhD Chemical Biologist) that has even small scale clinical studies demonstrating effectiveness over what used to be a death sentence. The other part of the problem is that they originally claimed they needed to wait until they obtained FDA approval for its analog, redemsivir. FDA approval was granted over a year ago (October 22nd, 2020). There still has not been release of the drug for any future clinical trials or veterinary research despite calls for it. In contrast, Pfizer has an entire product line dedicated to veterinary medicine...so the claim that all drug companies have behaved in this way is oversimplistic. I'd also strongly argue that very few people have heard of or will look up drugs that are known only by their catalog name...so more people are likely to be referred to the drug page from Gilead Science than vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.189.18 (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Tax avoidance

I'll bring this discussion here before reverting. For the sake of convenience, I'll just adapt my reasoning below for these two additions, reverted by Zefr, here, as originally outlined on my talk page. I am somewhat bewildered by the edit summary's note that news reports are not proof when it comes to tax avoidance. Wikipedia is not about truth, but what is reported in reliable sources, and in addition to the two cited in the original edit — the Washington Post and Stat News — there is also coverage in Bloomberg, The Chicago Tribune, The Journal] (Ireland), and industry outlets like Pharmacy Times. Frankly, there is not a whole lot of proof needed here; it is widely accepted that Ireland is a tax haven, there are no, as far as I am aware, RS's indicating that the underlying report is inaccurate in that regard, and so the only possibly controversial issue at play is the volume of money involved. Again, no RS's or even statements from Gilead contest the number. In short: there are a litany of sources discussing the report and its conclusions, my original edit made sure to specify the underlying report's source and ideological bias, and inclusion in a section about tax avoidance — which has spawned numerous articles outside of the topic of the 2016 Americans for Tax Fairness report — seems entirely acceptable. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This revert was made to contest non-neutral emphasis from the four previous edits: a) tax avoidance (or evasion) is a federal corporate crime for which there is no governmental source indicating GS has been held accused or liable; b) a report by Americans for Tax Fairness, summarized by a newspaper, is perpetuation of a biased opinion, which becomes WP:SYNTH; c) the price of remdesivir is summarized in its article, without using the inflammatory term, "gouging". These problems arise when editing favors use of news sources, which can be used to expand interpretation of information from regulatory or scientific organizations, but should not be used to support opinions and bias. For the encyclopedia, we have to write facts into an article, supported by WP:RSCONTEXT, not news that sells a product - see WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTNEWS. Zefr (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have several things to note. I'll start out with the tax avoidance issue. First, generally speaking, I am quite confused by your definition of synthesis. SYNTH is the combination of multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Both of the sources I cited were clear in their conclusions, namely, that an advocacy group created a report that made a conclusion about tax avoidance. Per the Washington Post, "The California-based pharmaceutical giant moved some of its assets to Ireland, apparently allowing income from some U.S. drug sales to be shifted abroad and taxed at a lower rate, according to Americans for Tax Fairness, a liberal advocacy group. It has also avoided nearly $10 billion in taxes by not bringing some of its foreign profits back to the United States, the group says." And, per STAT News, "By transferring certain key assets to Ireland, Gilead was able to take advantage of tax laws that allowed some US sales to be shifted overseas and yield a significantly lower tax rate. Those overseas profits, meanwhile, mushroomed to $28.5 billion, and Gilead was able to escape paying $9.7 billion in US taxes last year, according to a new report published on Wednesday by the Americans for Tax Fairness, an advocacy organization." Compare this with the original wording in the edits you reverted: "A 2016 report by the liberal think tank Americans for Tax Fairness similarly argued that Gilead was able to avoid up up to $10 billion in taxes on U.S. sales through transfer pricing and other mechanisms." Nothing within that statement is at all novel or unoriginal. Now, as for "perpetuation of a biased opinion" — that is an entirely separate issue from SYNTH and has to do with neutrality. But neutrality is not saying things in the nicest, least controversial way possible; it is cataloguing controversy as it is documented in reliable sources. To borrow from WP:IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia describes disputes. My edits reflected the description of the controversy as it played out in various media outlets: an advocacy group with a bias put out an research article, and news editors at several different media decided the report and its contents were at least theoretically sound enough to repeat, with attribution, as I did in my edit.

Before moving on, I want to emphasize that tax avoidance is not a federal crime, and there is a specific reason I chose that wording as opposed to tax evasion; please see those respective articles. Nevertheless, it is highly scrutinized and controversial because it may be seen as an unethical shirking of civic duty. In other words, then, there is not going to be a government source for prosecution of tax evasion, and that is not at all what the underlying sources were claiming. What they were claiming, based on the underlying report, that Gilead uses offshore structures and accounting maneuvers to avoid paying taxes that would otherwise be paid in the United States. It's perfectly legal, and news media are the exact source you would find this sort of information in. There is not going to be peer-reviewed scientific literature about Gilead's specific tax avoidance unless it somehow becomes a unique innovator in that category.

Second, WP:NOTNEWS is entirely irrelevant here. To review the policy, the edits were not: (1) original reporting; (2) news reports ...routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities... — rather, this was a major event covered in half a dozen major, international news outlets, far from routine; (3) a who's who; or (4) celebrity gossip and diary. Your definition of NOTNEWS seems to just be that we should not report on things reported on in news media without peer reviewed sources or government documents backing them up. That is an entirely impossible standard in light of news media like the New York Times and others forming a bedrock of Wikipedia's reliable sources. The notion that we cannot repeat what is in news reports because it is not peer reviewed or published by a government agency leaves us with very little to work with outside the sciences, arguably, because as WP:NEWSORG states, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Now, the sources I cited are careful to contextualize their coverage as the result of a third-party report (if they didn't, they'd be plagiarizing and pretending to do an investigation/research they did not do). In this case, then, the statement of fact is that AfTF wrote a report that accused Gilead of tax avoidance. The content I wrote mirrored that contextualization, the reliability of which was reified by the inclusion in several reliable, independent, internationally prominent news sources. Washington Post does not write about every crank report generated by the hordes of thinktanks and lobbying groups in D.C.; the inclusion in such media is an indicator that the contents of the report are not pure fantasy. That is entirely fair game for inclusion in an encyclopedic article about a corporation, because it represents a notable portion of its overall coverage in the media.

Re: remdesivir pricing — the remdesivir article is quite telling, because the section you refer relies primarily on references to Gilead's own press releases, which is problematic for obvious reasons. Naturally, then, it avoids the term price gouging. The question, though, is whether or not at least some reliable, independent sources portray Gilead's behavior as price gouging generally and with respect to remdesivir. The answer is yes on both counts, and my edits to the top of the section still adhered to WP:IMPARTIAL because I made sure to use terms like "accused" and other attributives. The sources already in the article should be sufficient to demonstrate how activists and observers have accused Gilead of price gouging with respect to Truvada. Reliable sources similarly recount how concerns of price gouging were have been raised re: remdesivir, e.g. here ("multiple organizations voiced disapproval over the company’s pursuit of the FDA’s orphan status, citing price-gouging concerns"). With proper attribution — i.e. emphasizing that these are accusations, it is entirely appropriate to include remdesivir under that umbrella. You're not going to get a news organization saying "This is price gouging" because the definition thereof is subjective, but you are going to get news organizations noting that large number of activists groups, specialists, and/or other commentariat think it is, and that is notable controversy.

I am going to reinsert the reverted text tomorrow with revisions in light of this discussion and additional sourcing, and if you think it's still unacceptable, we can request outside opinion. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected — there is a peer reviewed article specifically discussing Gilead's tax avoidance, in the Arizona Law Review (including the specific phrasing "tax avoidance strategies like Gilead’s"). The article is cited in the updated tax avoidance section; diff here. I welcome edits that other editors believe will help improve it, whether in terms of WP:NEUTRAL or otherwise. Should Zefr feel that a complete reversion is necessary, the next step will presumably be to seek outside opinion. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)