Talk:AstraZeneca

Removed references
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 Special:Contributions/ (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)

Name
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 Naming_conventions. I have started a discusison on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions. ed g2s  &bull;  talk  22:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV
This is a total POV page. Will edit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (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
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: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_256/ai_n6258845 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 (www.nbcam.org).

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." http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/pressreleases/1998-05-16/fact-sheet

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
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

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Controversies section
As per suggestions above, I have included references to the "self-edit" controversy. A third link caused the entire section to automatically be deleted:  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. 74.243.178.253 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained controversial modifications/deletions
New user Special:Contributions/ 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 Special:Contributions/ to the the list for deleting the entire "self-editing" section without explanation.Youngea (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ 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)

Cleanup
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
I'm not seeing any references for the section titled "Malaria Drugs". 98.209.119.113 (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Executive Officer Section
"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.68.6.76.141 (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Der Speigel Stern Reference
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?   petrarchan47  t  c   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)

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 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. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8827397
 * 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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MPS/It%27s_ok_to_use_your_brain#Using_your_brain_for_the_.22common_sense_test.22_on_talk_pages. 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)

brit-swed company?
would like some reference to the company being british/swedish. on the website they call themself multinational. where is the comapny registered? --Andrgust (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AstraZeneca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://articles.marketwatch.com/2007-02-01/news/30828561_1_astrazeneca-anglo-swedish-therapies
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013162711/http://www.stern.de/magazin/heft/595225.html to http://www.stern.de/magazin/heft/595225.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

List defined references
I've added some references, and used listed defined references in the 2015 section to avoid text clutter. This citation method doesn't change the appearance of the citations when reading the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see on your userpage that you strongly prefer the defined ref style. I am sure you also have had the discussion many times about keeping ref style consistent, per WP:CITESTYLE.  I am sure you are further well aware that MOS says this to avoid edit wars over reference style.
 * I will revert to the former style. Also please don't misrepresent your edits in edit notes. You added no ref in this diff, you just changed the style.  Thanks for fleshing out the bareURL's in the second diff.  I will restore those after the revert. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I originally added the Business Weekly reference here diff before you tweaked it. Using list defined reference is not a different reference style.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Poll
It is earlier to read, and therefore maintain the 2015 section using list defined references. Consider the following diff
 * Support - as proposer. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * waste of time. We do not use differing ref styles in the same article. Again MOS reads as it does specifically to prevent this kind of dispute.  This is as irresolvable as ERA or ENGVAR which is why you need to leave this alone. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again it is not a different reference style. It is a different way of coding which happily coexists with inline defined. This is purely a source code change – the actual display of the citation in the text to a reader is unaffected. WP:LDR.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again it certainly is. You like the style, which keeps the citation out of the content when you edit.  Others don't want to have to change things in two places if they change the ref.   It is 100% a style thing, exactly with no change in substance. This is the kind of argument over nothing that the MOS kills and buries in the ground so people don't have to waste time with this kind of utter waste of time argument. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Its not a style difference for the reader. If you think it is a waste of time changing styles, why did you change the reference I added to your preferred style? I added content to the article, and you tweaked the style. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See every reply i have made here but I will add that I reverted b/c of WP:CITESTYLE. It is not "my preferred style" it was the existing style.  I am not responding further here. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was not the existing code 'style' for the content I added, see diff. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:LDR inline and list defined are compatible not either-or. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another misconception is that there is an "either-or" choice between use of list-defined footnotes and in-line footnotes, and that all citations in an article must follow only one of the styles. In fact, is entirely compatible with the use of in-line footnotes in the form content or content. Although use of both systems in the same article might appear confusing or undesirable, it is a fact that the two systems can be mixed indiscriminately with the template .

. quoting (diff) from a help page with less than thirty watchers and trying to use that to trump MOS is the definition of wikilawyering. That will get you no where. And to respond to the call in MOS to be consistent throughout articles with It was not the existing style for the content I added (diff) also gets you no where. Just taking notes. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to trump anything just trying to get to the bottom of way you tweaked the code to content I added. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AstraZeneca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603121038/http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2014/assets/pdf/Principal_Subsidiaries.pdf to http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2014/assets/pdf/Principal_Subsidiaries.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100813064614/http://www.astrazeneca.se/om_oss/verksamheten-i-Sverige/Forskning/ to http://www.astrazeneca.se/om_oss/verksamheten-i-Sverige/Forskning/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AstraZeneca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211155349/http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2008/remuneration_report/exec_directors_exec_team.html to http://www.astrazeneca-annualreports.com/2008/remuneration_report/exec_directors_exec_team.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

AstraZeneca PLC
User:UKHinduMan has pointed out that with both incorporation and global headquarters being present in the UK, this is a British company. However an IP is insisting that this is a British-Swedish company. I support UKHinduMan's view. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Technically it's Anglo-Swedish, Zeneca (the old ICI) + Swedish based Astra merged, it's very similar to Shell + Unilever. -- Devoke water  (talk)  21:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, especially as it is still listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Dormskirk (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed - it's British-Swedish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firsteleventh (talk • contribs) 17:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to follow on, whilst AstraZeneca UK and PLC are registered in UK, AstraZeneca AB is registered in Sweden. Firsteleventh (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But AstraZeneca AB is a subsidiary of AstraZeneca PLC, e.g. see page 229 of Annual Report Financial Statements. --D Wells (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

AstraZeneca AB in Sweden is just a branch which is named "Euroclear Sweden AB", and not the actual registered office, they are just like AstraZeneca US, AstraZeneca JP, AstraZeneca CA which are branches in USA, Japan and Canada, and the fact that AstraZeneca only has one registered office and only headquartered in Cambridge, England. so AstraZeneca is only British based according to the company official site https://www.astrazeneca.com/investor-relations/annual-reports/annual-report-2016/contact-information.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.229.178.153 (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Headquarters' location doesn't say everything about the origin. Ikea, for instance, are headquartered in the Netherlands, but is thought of as a quintessentially Swedish company. Astra was Swedish, the Zeneca Group was British, they went in with about equal shares, and media has traditionally described the company as Anglo-Swedish. Anyway, since there is disagreement, maybe it's better to drop the countries of origin and simply describe them as a "multinational pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical company"? (the company's own website does not identify countries of origin, but calls it "a global, science-led biopharmaceutical business") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.90.167 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

AstraZeneca PLC is legally registered in the UK, which makes it British surely, and all other entities (including AstraZeneca AB, no such thing as "AstraZeneca UK" per se) are subsidiaries of AstraZeneca PLC. See Annual Report Financial Statements, see also "We are a public limited company registered in England and Wales under company number 02723534". Whilst its origin is partially Swedish, this belongs more in the history section rather than the current definition. The legal entity AstraZeneca PLC has always existed as ZENECA PLC it just changed it's name when subsuming AstraAB see entry on 7th April 1999 D Wells (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Techically no, many USA based companies moved their HQ to Eire. -- Devoke water  (talk)  15:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No to which bit exactly? I didn't mention anything about HQ per se, but about legal registration and subsidiary status. I'm not sure which companies you are referring to specifically but I know e.g. Google has Google Ireland Holdings & Google Ireland Limited, but they are subsidiaries of Google INC, its Ireland HQ is not the global HQ. D Wells (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * AstraZeneca PLC is legally registered in the UK, which makes it British surely e.g. Unilever + Shell are both AngleDutch.   Devoke water   (talk)  18:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Shell's headquarters are in the Netherlands so it seems fair to call it AngleDutch, but for AstraZeneca (and Unilever as of June 2020) both headquarters and registered office are in the UK and so are officially british companies. They can only really be described as AngleDutch or British-Sweedish culturally or historically. --D Wells (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The Fact that the Swedish Astra, the British Zeneca Group don’t exist and not a thing anymore, They started a new company in Cambridge, England so called AstraZenaca which the origin starts in England only, as it is only British based, everything started in England and mainly traded in London Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange, and There is no Swedish shareholders in the the company, only British and Americans funds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:FB1:71:4386:CDA8:F204:F5:DF01 (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "There is no Swedish shareholders in the the company, only British and Americans funds".
 * Investor AB is one of the largest shareholders. It has been in ownership of Astra AB since 1920's. No Swedish owners? Simply wrong, in fact it's one of the largest and maybe the only active of the large shareholders? Investor AB is an active owner, an investment company. Other large owners seems to be funds. Also a lot of Swedish funds are owners, as well as Swedish individuals, since AstraZeneca is listed at the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Astra and Zeneca merged, it was not the case that Zeneca aquired Astra if that's what you think. Fredrik9002 (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it was a merger of the two companies. -- Devoke water  (talk)  17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

In this interview with Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca's CEO, released on the 26th of January 2021, Mr. Soriot states the following: "I mean, as a company we are half Swedish and half British. In fact, we're global, of course, but we are European as much as we are British". If, in fact, the company's own CEO believes the company to be half Swedish and half British, then I'm inclined to agree with this article's usage of the term Swedish-British.EOAndersson (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal for AZD1222 vaccine
 I propose that section AstraZeneca be split into a separate page called AZD1222. The AstraZeneca page is large enough (64,415 bytes), and is expected that the vaccine information is going to grow as the phase III results seem promising (79% to 90% effectivity) and the EU has reserved 300M dosis. Other vaccine candidates (as Pfizer and Moderna) already have their own page. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, seem to be a good idea. -- Devoke water  (talk)  21:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I go ahead then.Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)



A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Logo AstraZeneca.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AstraZeneca COVID-19 Vaccine (cropped).jpg

EMA official position as of 13th of April: Causal relationship is now "plausible" not possible
Adverse reactions exceed what would be expected in general population.

Please see link below and update article and lead accordingly. Thank you. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/dhpc/direct-healthcare-professional-communication-dhpc-vaxzevria-previously-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca_en-0.pdf

Huasteca (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexion Purchase
AZ closed on the purchase of Alexion last week, and it is not reflected here as a company it purchased.

GBS as a rare side-effect of AZ vaccination (UK)
Update. This seems to be a little more strongly confirmed now, so it's worth keeping an eye on it, and updating the article if necessary. Here is a UK report updated 21 October 2021. Storye book (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Update main photo - outdated
Update main photo as is outdated. Main Cambridge building is now the AstraZeneca Corporate HQ building called the Discovery Centre (DISC) in Cambridge, UK. Ref. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2021/astrazeneca-unveils-the-discovery-centre-disc-in-cambridge.html#! Grace8888 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)