Talk:Merck & Co.

Section on research at Merck
Adding something here for inclusion in a Research section should one be made.

Research Management

Dr. Anthony Ford-Hutchinson, Executive Vice President, Worldwide Basic Research, Merck Research Laboratories.


 * 1)  CHI World Pharmaceutical Congress 2005 Website and final agenda in print form. Verified 03-07-2005.


 * Dr. Peter S Kim, President, Merck Research Laboratories- originally from the Whitehead Institute at M.I.T.

Rosetta Biosoftware merge
See Talk:Rosetta Biosoftware - I would support this merge. Just another star in the night T 06:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this merge too. The information is useful and will add more value when an individual is researching about Merck. Thanks, KP.

This merge makes sense, personnel at Rosetta are considered Merck employees for benefits, pay and retirement. As noted in the opposition, they do sell their software outside of Merck and Rosetta Biosoftware facilities are not directly accessible to all Merck employees. Rosetta is a great place to work and shares corporate culture and company events with Merck. It is interesting that no mention of Rosetta is found on Merck's websites, however, these two references were found showing their relationship. http://www.forbes.com/2001/05/11/0511rosetta.html http://www.wabio.com/industry/directory/companybyid?companyid=120 Examining Merck's mission statements and core competencies it's understandable that there is no mention.

Oppose the Merge
I oppose merging Rosetta Biosoftware with Merck because Rosetta Biosoftware is a business unit of Rosetta Inpharmatics, LLC, and Rosetta Inpharmatics LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck. Rosetta Biosoftware sells software commercially to many companies outside of Merck, including Merck competitors. If you look at any advertising or branding of Rosetta Biosoftware, you'll see no mention or indication of Merck. Because Rosetta Biosoftware also supports Merck Research Labs, instead of a merge, I propose that the Merck entry be edited to refer to Rosetta Biosoftware with a link to this entry as a separate one.

~gf
 * I have no objection to a reference made listing wholly owned subsidiaries of Merck within the article, but Rosetta Biosoftware is an independent entity and its content should not be merged into Merck, a mention would be acceptable. Kershner 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rosetta business unit is not notable enough for its own article, so I've redirected it here. If anyone thinks this article should mention it, please add a sentence. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 03:43Z 

mission
Since this seems to be simply a regurgitation of marketing material by merck, it should be noted as such.Cinnamon colbert 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling it their mission implies that it is their words. Besides, the first sentence already makes it clear that it is self-described anyway.  Putting it in a second place, in the header, just creates clutter in my opinion.  --Ed (Edgar181) 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose it is worht a big argument. my view is that (a it is advertising, which is not the role of wikipedia; (b) mission does not imply their view; for instance, I'm sure you could find a source which describes the mission of merck as generating profits for share holders regardless of patient need; (c) since it is advertising, it should be in the header and not the 1st sentance.

Fair use rationale for Image:Merck-logousa.png
Image:Merck-logousa.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review journal controversy
I found the reference, my mistake: ignore or line out this part (i dont know how to put lines thru text!):Can someone provide a link to the Scientist magazine on this, all i get are news aggregators and blogs, but its obviously reported at science. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Confiscation in 1917
"Merck & Co. was confiscated in 1917 during World War I and set up as an independent company in the United States. Between the wars and during World War II, the company was led by George W. Merck, who oversaw America's germ-warfare research at Fort Detrick." There are no references cited regarding this and to me it seems like a pretty big deal. What does it mean to confiscate a company? Exactly how do you do that? Johnfravolda (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits of September 22 2014
I plan to do some more work on the article. In particular, the "case reports" are an odd format, here, and I plan to integrate these into the discussion of the company's products, as they are all product centric. For now, the "notable legacy products" section does not contain Vioxx as it is discussed in a section below, but this all needs to be pulled together, the good and the bad. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Mergers and acquisitions
I'm wondering if we can reach an agreeement about which mergers, acquisitions, and deals rise to the level of belonging in an encyclopedia article. Although Merck does not have a real long history of being active in M&A and external deals, I would think we would want to limit this to things that are likely to still appear significant in 10 years. Otherwise we are just picking things at random to add I would think. Some of these deals are pretty small.

What do you suggest should be our criteria?

Also, I don't like these "$4B deal" press release statements. These are almost always based on some payments that are pretty much contingent on the collaboration developing the next Lipitor. 95% of the time, the smaller company gets the upfront payment and nothing else. Can we agree on something that sounds a little bit less like it was pulled from SmallCo's press release?

thanks 169.230.155.132 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi 169.230.155.132;


 * 1) As far as M&A activity, I believe that if it's reported in secondary sources it is therefore notable enough for inclusion. Another reason being, that in researching other Pharma/Biotechs I have had massive issues due to a lack of accurate recording of M&As, so it would be prudent to add the info as these events occur.
 * 2) As for collaboration style information, I'd be inclined to add a sentence which references back to your information of contingent type payment. That way the reader knows that SmallCo just didn't receive a wad of cash one day and how the deal is structured. Obviously this would need to be supported by relevant references. XyZAn (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Merck"
The usage of Merck is under discussion, see talk:Merck. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The primary topic of "Merck" is under discussion, see talk:Merck KGaA -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Merck & Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091107063055/http://www.merck.com:80/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2009_1103.html to http://www.merck.com/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2009_1103.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091208044359/http://www.merck.com:80/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2009_1104.html? to http://www.merck.com/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2009_1104.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041029135457/http://www.finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2004/prg101504.pdf to http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2004/prg101504.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080916195646/http://www.merck.com:80/newsroom/press_releases/corporate/2006_0526.html to http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/corporate/2006_0526.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Merck & Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110727152434/http://www.merck.com/responsibility/pap-information.html to http://www.merck.com/responsibility/pap-information.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit
I think the lawsuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. v. MERCK & CO.  might be mentioned in the Society and culture section of the article. Roberttherambler (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What was the outcome of this lawsuit? What impact has it had on society and culture?   The Reuters news article that you link to describes nothing more than routine legal maneuvering.  Gnome de plume (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe the lawsuit is ongoing. Roberttherambler (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Finasteride
No mention of the drug finasteride? And the lawsuits and controversy over its side effects and company's labeling practices?

https://www.drugwatch.com/propecia/

While the sexual side effects and cancer risks associated with Propecia use only affect a small percentage of users, these problems can take a drastic emotional toll on patients. Persistent sexual dysfunction, even after the end of treatment, can destroy personal relationships and diminish quality of life.

Hundreds of men have decided to take legal action against Merck, claiming the company omitted important information about long-term side effects from Propecia’s safety label. These men hope to receive compensation for the damaging effects Propecia caused.

By April 2012, there were Propecia lawsuits against Merck pending in six states, all related to persistent sexual dysfunction. To conserve resources, simplify the discovery process and keep pretrial rulings consistent, these cases were centralized to the Eastern District of New York on April 16, 2012. These cases were consolidated into MDL 2331, a multidistrict litigation led by U.S. District Judge John Gleeson. The MDL grew to more than 700 lawsuits, with the first trails set to begin in October 2016. Hundred of cases also pending in New Jersey state courts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.166.68 (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Merck & Co.. 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/20120708195540/http://www.merck.com/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2011_0415.html to http://www.merck.com/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2011_0415.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) 02:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Adel Mahmoud
Is there a Wikipedia page on Adel Mahmoud? There should be.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/obituaries/dr-adel-mahmoud-76-dies-credited-with-major-vaccines.html

Dr. Adel Mahmoud, an infectious-disease expert who played a vital role in the development of lifesaving vaccines, died on June 11 in Manhattan. He was 76.

--Nbauman (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is: Adel Mahmoud. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 16:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

wrong company for Petra Wicklandt
This reference: "In March 2021, Merck Head of Corporate Affairs Petra Wicklandt represented the company at the Munich Security Conference, where she participated in a tabletop exercise simulating the public health response to the release of a weaponized strain of monkeypox." is not correct, as Petra Wicklandt works for Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and not for Merck & Co., the company this wikipedia page is about. For example see here:https://www.emdgroup.com/en/news/new-group-function-sustainability-16-09-2021.html

May I ask to correct that and check on your ends, who talked for Merck & Co about monkeypox at Munich Security Conference in 2021? Gschrimpf (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)