Talk:Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

comment[edit]

A template on the article, dating back to 2007, argues its neutrality, pointing to the talk page. Neither this page, nor its history, indicates any basis for the challenge. If no one objects, I'll remove the template. Bustter (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triple combination treatments[edit]

Hi. I have an edit request for the sub-section of the "Medicines" section called "Triple combination treatments." A short sentence was recently added to this section which, because it does not give any background information, context or explanation of the complex processes involved in global drug distribution and accessibility, appears distinctly not neutral. This edit request is a sourced, accurate and more in-depth description of the rationale and process of how this particular medicine, Trikafta, is made available around the world to people with CF. I propose to replace the content that is currently in the "Triple combination treatments" section with the following content, some of which is already on the page, and some of which is new, sourced material. Together this is a more encyclopedic and neutral presentation of the subject:

In 2016, Vertex began developing a new group of CFTR modulators in combination with tezacaftor and ivacaftor.[1] In 2017, the company reported results that showed benefits for patients with different mutations that appear with varying frequency in different parts of the world. It is estimated that about 90 percent of the CF population in the United States and Northern Europe carry this mutation of the CF causing gene, while in the Middle East, Asia and Africa only between 19 and 44 percent of those with CF have the necessary genetic mutation for medicines like Trikafta to be effective.[2][3]
On 22 October 2019, the FDA approved Vertex's Triple-combo therapy Trikafta (elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor) for patients 12 and older with at least one F508del mutation. This approval came only 2 months after the new drug application was filed.[4] Trikafta, which is known as Kaftrio in most countries outside the United States, was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in the United Kingdom in August 2020. [5] In June 2021, the FDA approved Trikafta in children with CF ages 6 through 11 who have at least one F508del mutation.[6][7]
As of early 2023, Vertex medicines were approved and reimbursed in more than 40 countries outside the U.S.[8] Vertex is funding a study to investigate the genetics of CF in poorer countries.[2]
Since Trikafta is not available in many poorer countries yet, patients in four countries, Ukraine, India, South Africa and Brazil, have filed petitions to initiate legal action to force their governments to bring Trikafta or an equivalent generic low-cost version to their countries. In the case of Brazil, where Vertex's first CF medicine is already funded,[9] the company has received regulatory approval for Trikafta and is working with authorities to secure reimbursement. However, patients there are worried that the Vertex version will be unaffordable.[8] A spokesperson for Vertex said that the company has also initiated a "product donation pilot program" for selected low-income countries.[2]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference cystic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Nolen, Stephanie; Robbins, Rebecca (7 February 2023). "The Drug Is a 'Miracle' but These Families Can't Get It". The New York Times.
  3. ^ "'Just What We Dreamed.' New Vertex Drugs Show Dramatic Benefit Against Cystic Fibrosis". Forbes. 18 July 2017.
  4. ^ "FDA approves new breakthrough therapy for cystic fibrosis". FDA. 21 October 2019.
  5. ^ "Trikafta/Kaftrio continues to be a game-changer for cystic fibrosis patients". Pharmaceutical Technology. 13 January 2022.
  6. ^ Nadeem, Dania (9 June 2021). "Vertex cystic fibrosis treatment gets U.S. nod for use in children aged 6-11". Reuters.
  7. ^ "US FDA approves Vertex Pharma's Trikafta to treat children with CF ages 6 through 11 with certain mutations cystic fibrosis". Pharmabiz.com. 11 June 2021.
  8. ^ a b Lewin, Katherine (7 February 2023). "Patients, advocacy groups launch fight against Trikafta patents in four countries". Endpoints News.
  9. ^ Correa da Silva Marra, Nayara (December 2020). "RELATÓRIO PARA SOCIEDADE" (PDF). Conitec.gov.br.

I am calling on Kj_cheetham, who has helped in the past with the bios of people affiliated with Vertex, to help out with this edit request. Thank you. JohnDatVertex (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is complete corporate BS. The subsection is appropriately sourced (The sentence in question is backed up by a very reliable NYT source and is neutral as is, as it simply states a fact). Absolutely denied. Quetstar (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: - Thank You for your comments - and request ( see => User talk:Drbogdan#Vertex Pharmaceuticals ) - after reviewing the Vertex Pharmaceuticals WikiArticle - and the article history, including the WikiEditors who have been involved - seems the text and supporting references have been presented very well - actually, better than many other such WikiArticles in my experiences over the years - at the moment, I'm inclined to agree with the WikiEditor ( ie, User:Quetstar ) on the related talk-page ( see => Talk:Vertex Pharmaceuticals#Triple combination treatments ) in denying your talk-page request - nonetheless - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments and all - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drbogdan, Thanks for your response. I wonder if you would be amenable to just tweaking the last sentence in the Triple combination treatments section. I think the phrase "has refused" is a bit stronger than what is described in the New York Times article, and so is "works to block." The Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that contentious words and biased language be avoided whenever possible. With those guidelines in mind, perhaps you would agree to this sentence, or something similar: "As of 2023, Vertex did not sell Trikafta in developing countries, and did not allow other companies to produce generic alternatives, which would make it more accessible to many more patients." I appreciate you taking the time to consider this suggestion. I am also open to any ideas you might have to make the sentence more accurate. Thank you. JohnDatVertex (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and requested edit - seems worth a consideration - further comments (support or oppose) welcome from others - in order to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on the edit request if possible, according to current Wikipedia policy, guidelines and related - as before - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy!! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: (and others) - Brief Follow-up re the requested edit is as follows:
[ CURRENT ORIGINAL TEXT ]
"Vertex has refused to make Trikafta available in developing countries and works to block generic alternatives, making it inaccessible for thousands of patients."[1]
[ REQUESTED PROPOSED TEXT ]
"As of 2023, Vertex did not sell Trikafta in developing countries, and did not allow other companies to produce generic alternatives, which would make it more accessible to many more patients."
Hope this helps - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Drbogdan, thank you for your interest and assistance thus far. I appreciate your wanting a consensus from the community, and it appears that there are no objections to the proposed changes. As such, would you now be willing to implement the request? If anyone has any objections they can certainly edit the article themselves as well, or discuss it further here. Thanks again, JohnDatVertex (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - @JohnDatVertex and Quetstar: (and others) - seems the best action at the moment is to defer to the original text (actually, no objections to this text at the moment) - and Not to the proposed text (actually, objection to this or similar text has been noted - see discussion above) - at least until there is sufficient agreement and/or consensus (per WikiPolicy, WikiGuidelines and related) to modify the text - hope this helps - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drbogdan. Thanks again for looking at this. I believe the objection was only to the original, longer edit proposal. I didn’t assume that an objection to the first, lengthy edit request means the smaller tweak to the original sentence is also objected to. Nevertheless, I would welcome additional input from more editors. Do you have any ideas as to how I can get more eyes on the page and the request? Thanks so much. JohnDatVertex (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnDatVertex: - Thanks for your comments - the original text, regardless of the length of any requested proposed text, seems preferred at the moment - this may change if other editors comment otherwise of course - for my part, I Welcome Comments from other editors - should note that other editors may have already viewed this post and, by not commenting, may be supporting the present original text - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nolen, Stephanie; Robbins, Rebecca (February 7, 2023). "The Drug Is a 'Miracle' but These Families Can't Get It - Vertex Pharmaceuticals is not making its drug, Trikafta, available in poorer countries, where thousands of diagnosed patients stand to benefit". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved March 29, 2023.

Firing remark[edit]

I suggest to delete the remark on the firing as it is not relevant for Vertex. TruthPrevailsFinally (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User TruthPrevailsFinally has a conflict of interest and should not edit or argue about this article. He has admitted the conflict of interest here.
His behavior seems like he is a paid "content removal agency" or the fired associate (Waygood) himself who wants to censor Wikipedia.
The whole situation (antisemitic incident by high-ranking employee, firing on the same day, public statement of Vertex) is relevant.
Reasons:
  1. 1 International media coverage, see citations in the article
  2. 2 Millions of views on X, thousands of comments, thousands of retweets
  3. 3 Involvement of two well-known and reputable Jewish organisations (StopAntisemitism, Shirion Collective), which brought the scandal to public attention
  4. 4 Vertex is a public company. This is very relevant information to the shareholders, some of which (for instance funds) have strict compliance regimes regarding incidents like this and may have to be forced to sell shares, which can cause a great economic impact.
  5. 5 Vertex itself has issued a public statement including Richard Waygood's name. It is a very rare occurrence that companies comment publicly on firings, even rarer is a statement including names.
  6. 6 He was a high-ranking associate (see #5), otherwise Vertex would not have fired him publicly
  7. 7 As stated in the article, the incident happened just weeks after the 2023 Hames attack on Israel, during a period of time with rising antisemitism.
  8. 8 There was a public outcry, targeting even his wife's (Annette Waygood) company (Partners Group), where she is also a high-ranking associate. There are also newspaper reports about his wife, who had also been at the event on which Richard Waygood wore the Nazi armband, although there is no information (yet) if she also wore Nazi clothes.
Under these circumstances, this is more than relevant to Vertex. MarcoMiller2 (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then let us get the statement accurate. There is no source that he was a high ranking associate; his wife is at her company, but he is not. Vertex has also stated that he was employed through a third-party agency; which even more supports that he was not high-ranking.
The photo was published after the attack but there is no source to support when the picture was actually taken.
The reference to antisemitism should be removed as there are no credible sources that support this picture being taken for antisemitic purposes (a picture alone without use against Jews or Israel does not amount to antisemitism based on the definition on Wikipedia).
The reference to same-day firing is also not supported by any sources, only the firing itself. TruthPrevailsFinally (talk) 08:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole incident is about antisemitism, as it has been uncovered by StopAntisemitism. We don't need to discuss that this is about antisemitism.
Wikipedia relies on sources like newspapers. In this case, reputable and well-known international newspapers have reported the facts, and we can be sure that they have carefully collected evidence and vetted the facts. So it is irrelevant to negate or trivialize the incident itself. It was one of the most notable and shocking antisemitic incidents, and it is noteworthy that is is well-documented by a photo, and (according to multiple comments on X), the guy with the Nazi armband would well qualify for StopAntisemitism's "Antisemite of the Year". Furthermore, as stated in the other thread, private claims (for instance regarding the background of the photo etc) or any first-class "evidence" is irrelevant to Wikipedia, it's only about sources.
Also, in this case, not only the incident itself (the Hakenkreuz armband wearing) is noteworthy, but also the public reaction.
Apart from that:
@TruthPrevailsFinally, are you Richard or Anette Waygood? Or are you a paid "content removal agency"? MarcoMiller2 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, I have removed "anti-semitic" from the article, as it is clear that a Hakenkreuz/swastika armband such as the one worn by Richard Waygood is antisemitic, as the involved organisations (StopAntisemitism and Shirion Collective) show. It does not need to be stated with the term "anti-semitic armband". MarcoMiller2 (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this has no relevance to the company and this was just a Swiss-based contractor. I fully agree with deleting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1210:8039:4000:185E:975F:D6D8:744F (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edit because not only did you remove material which did have a supporting source, but your change/addition did not have a supporting source. Kimen8 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Kimen8, you are 100% correct.
This topic has been extensively discusses above and here.
What happened here is the following:
Non-registered authors from Swiss or Swiss VPN IP numbers as well as the user @TruthPrevailsFinally (who has admitted to a conflict of interest here) try to censor and vandalize this article and the corresponding one of StopAntisemitism where the same incident is mentioned.
With a very high probability, not only @TruthPrevailsFinally, but also the other Swiss authors have a conflict of interest, as they claim to have different information (without any source) about this incident.
However:
  1. 1 Wikipedia is not censored, see here
  2. 2 Wikipedia relies on sources and not on claims or first-hand "evidence". A source is, for example, a newspaper. The current incident has been reported internationally by well-renowned newspapers, including the name of the associate.
  3. 3 See above, I posted 8 reasons why all of the information is relevant MarcoMiller2 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the threshold for this is, but should the article be submitted for a protection request? Kimen8 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, although I would prefer more if the anonymous editors who constantly vandalize the article would understand how Wikipedia works, what is a source, what is relevant, etc.
Maybe my wish will be granted... MarcoMiller2 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once I understood the rules of engagement on Thursday (thank you again for explaining), I have not been edited the articles on Wikipedia. I note that even more information has been added since our conversation. 85.4.52.230 (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove poorly sourced non-noteworthy paragraph[edit]

Hi. As disclosed, I am an employee of Vertex. It seems abundantly clear that the current paragraph regarding the employee and the armband is not supported by WP:RS as well as violates WP:NOTNEWS. Numbers of views or shares on social media are irrelevant on Wikipedia- the question here is not whether the event occurred, but whether it is noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia entry about the company given the coverage. As the situation stands today, all sources are either primary or regurgitations of primary sources in foreign media. There is no independent coverage in reliable, third-party publications, and therefore, the information is not relevant for inclusion. If the incident is later covered in relevant mainstream media, perhaps this can be revisited, but otherwise, it should be removed. One editor is clearly an SPA, and the discussion above and others on various User Talk pages indicate that both editors have a conflict of interest of some sort. Therefore, I’d like to get a neutral editor’s thoughts on this. Perhaps Ptrnext or Drbogdan would like to add to the discussion. Thank you for your time. JohnDatVertex (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnDatVertex and Ptrnext: (and others) - Thank You for your comments - and suggestion(s) - Yes - seems to be worth a discussion and a final WP:CONSENSUS - for my part, no problem whatsoever for whatever decision is finally reached - Thanks again for your comments and all - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency, if this is the logic you're using, there are several points that should be removed from the History, including some that are "good" for Vertex Pharmaceuticals. I am against censoring the information that makes the company look bad while leaving the information that makes them look good. Be consistent and be transparent. Kimen8 (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.
Contrary to what has been said, there is coverage in independent, reliable, third-party publications / mainstream media, such as:
  1. 1
In Blick:
https://www.blick.ch/schweiz/geschmacklos-aktion-hat-folgen-zuger-manager-posiert-mit-hakenkreuz-binde-job-weg-id19153294.html
  1. 2
20minuten:
https://www.20min.ch/story/foto-mit-nazi-binde-kostet-zuger-pharma-manager-den-job-758541354911
  1. 3
Inside-Paradeplatz (Swiss #1 financial online publication):
https://insideparadeplatz.ch/2023/11/16/aufregung-bei-partners-group-wegen-nazi-foto/
  1. 4
Zentralplus (Swiss magazine):
https://www.zentralplus.ch/news/wirbel-um-nazi-foto-bei-der-baarer-partners-group-2597678/
This news coverage differs from each other (therefore independent) and is not a reurgitation: Articles #1 and #2 target the Vertex associate in question, whereas #3 and #4 target the company of his wife (Partners Group) and adds new information.
It has been a major incident that has never happened before and is noteworthy and relevant, also in the historic context.
The company itself has deemed this incident so important that they issued a public press release naming (and therefore shaming) the associate (Waygood) in question.
So I'd vote for having it in the history of Vertex. Jolenko1 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Social media scandal[edit]

BLP outweighs most possible benefits for inclusion, but the fact this was just a social media scandal makes it clearly UNDUE in the article about the company. If the individual in question as an article, put it there. Otherwise it should stay out. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vertex_Pharmaceuticals&oldid=1205074052"