Talk:Purdue Pharma/Archives/2013

Related companies.
According to Mundipharma, Purdue Pharma, Mundipharma and Napp are related (" independent associated companies". I guess loads of cross-licensing by regions e.g. Betadine in parts of Europe is licensed from Mundipharma). See www(dot)Mundipharma(dot)co(dot)uk (do not link to the site it says on the legal stuff). Ttiotsw 08:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed para
An anon has repeatedly put the below text in the article. This needs to be NPOVd, cleaned-up and correctly cited to reputable sources before any part of it is put back. --mav (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"In July 2007, Purdue and its 3 CEO's were convicted and pled guilty to charges of misleading physicians and patients as to the addictive and abusive qualities of OxyContin. The CEO's were Michael Friedman, Howard Udell and Paul Goldenheim. Their actions have resulted in an epidemic of death and addiction in every state in the country. They were all heavily fined, put on probation and ordered to serve 400 hours of community service in a drug rehabilitation facility. Rudy Giuliani as their paid PR representative negotiated the plea agreement. Marianne Skolek, Activist for Victims of OxyContin and Purdue Pharma has worked tirelessly at exposing Purdue Pharma and its executives for criminally marketing OxyContin. Recently she charged Purdue Pharma through the FDA and FTC and Attorney Generals throughout the country with marketing for pregnancy pain and for the undertreatment of pain in infants and pediatric patients. This marketing ploy will result in addictions and deaths in the most vunerable of people -- pregnant women and infants and children. Purdue Pharma may delete this paragraph referring to their criminal marketing, but it will be reposted each time and the word has already reached high offices."

I think you'll find an explanation here. Dppowell (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Saw this on COI/N
I've made the following comment there (copied here for the convenience of inexperienced users):

Suggestion: if the incident is notable (is it?), then a separate article about the lawsuit may be appropriate. Of course, WP:NPOV needs to be followed there as well. But adding this one incident to the company's page probably violates WP:UNDUE. For comparison purposes, we have do have a FAC article on Burger King legal issues... Pcap ping  19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see a couple of newspaper articles covering this topic, , and there was a U.S. Senate hearing about it , so it seems notable enough. Those interested in developing this article, please take a moment to read the relevant Wikipedia policies here verifiability (not WP:TRUTH), and (neutral point of view). Pcap ping  20:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a NYT article about the trial. I'll use it as source for the article. Pcap  ping  20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cerumenex
Tis section appears undue weight on relatively trivial matters and I have accordingly removed it, and started a discussion on the matter at

Pharmalot blog

 * The following discussion was cut from WT:MED by User:ImperfectlyInformed.

It appears to be run by a professional journalist, although he's a freelancer now. Is it acceptable to use it as a source? It has a few hits in Wikipedia (use search). It was used for some outlandish claims, e.g., but I've only used it to document the Skolek campaign , although MastCell removed even that reference, and now Ms. Skolek is back... Pcap ping  22:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:SPS for information on using blogs as sources. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As WP:SPS notes, blogs are acceptable if they're run by people who are experts and have been published in reliable publications on the issue. If that guy is a professional journalist and he's been published in reliable publications on the pharmaceutical industry, then I wouldn't have a problem with him being used for limited information related to the pharmaceutical industry, like what you used it for. MastCell is more of a stickler than I am, but he doesn't have veto power. Take it to WP:RS/N and get some uninvolved opinions. II  | (t - c) 08:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait - when did I lose my veto power? :) I'll be honest, I don't think this blog is appropriate sourcing for this tidbit. My reading of WP:SPS is that blogs may be acceptable in certain carefully circumscribed settings, but that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I'm also not clear that a freelance journalist who's had a few articles picked up can create a blog and generate "reliable" self-published content at will - particularly in an area where ample independent, reliable sources exist. It's not like we're hurting for well-sourced info on the topic such that we have to lower the bar. To take this line of reasoning a bit further, I could set up a blog, leverage my real-life credentials, and hold forth my musings on health, medicine, and my field of specialization - and it would be an encyclopedic, reliable source? No. Is the Skolek campaign covered anywhere besides this one blog? Has there been any indepedent, reliably sourced comment on it? If not, then I have a really hard time seeing encyclopedic notability here. I'm fine with WP:RS/N - I'd just ask that you give me a heads-up if you take it there - and perhaps we should move this conversation to Talk:Purdue Pharma. MastCell Talk 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, his blog is being indexed by Google news:, and she does get some hits in older newspapers . I don't particularly care for including this in the article. Pcap ping  19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is: I'd rather have someone write a short NPOV account of this, rather than have Ms. Skolek edit war over her unsourced version of the story. If she gets blocked from Wikipedia over this, you can expect more negative reporting from not so discerning reporters. Pcap ping  19:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The notability question is a good point, and I thought about that after I turned off the computer. A Google News search for Skolek turns up only one source and it is -- surprise -- the Pharmalot blog. Yet online news is limited. Pharmalot notes that she started a website, which has online copies of at least 3 regional newspaper articles which discuss her in-depth. Some people don't think regional newspapers (The Express-Times, Courier News) are reliable either. These links also come with the problems discussed in WP:CONVENIENCE. As far as published information on the pharmaceutical industry, I don't know whether it's hard to find, but it seems as if newspaper industry is only going to get smaller. The NYTimes now sells junk bonds. Most business publications lean conservative. With the WSJ now owned by Murdoch, Portfolio.com downsizing, and related changes across the industry, I'm not sure I expect reliable coverage of the pharmaceutical to be all that forthcoming. As far as MastCell citing his blog all over Wikipedia, I wouldn't have a problem with it, although it would probably get replaced by better sources. But if he wanted to discuss the details on some esoteric complicated drug or treatment, he would have had to publish a paper (or a couple) on that issue. Reliability on complicated science seems different than reliability on covering industry news. II  | (t - c) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Try the Google News archives, there are more hits (see my post right above yours). Pcap ping  19:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: II, I couldn't disagree more about the existence of critical reporting on the pharmaceutical industry. It seems quite vibrant to me. The New York Times is currently doing a series on ties between academic medical experts and drug companies, tying in with Charles Grassley's investigations, and they've actually brought down a few very big names, mostly in academic psychiatry - and that's all in the last few months. Hell, an editorial from this past Sunday was entitled "Expert or Shill?" And one of the Times former medical reporters wrote a fascinating book called "Our Daily Meds", which grew from her reporting there - definitely worth a read. Even in this specific case, the Times heavily covered Purdue Pharma's problems. The media is on the case - they love this kind of thing, so I don't think we need to turn to low-profile blogs as the last defenders of journalistic integrity. MastCell' Talk 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. Would be interesting to see the Murdoch buy the NYTimes, but even then I suppose there will be a fair bit of coverage. However, down the line things may not be so simple if the current trend continues. Incidentally, none of the 3 newspaper articles I noted are in Google News. P-cap might want to use one of the articles in Google News, but they all require registration, which is a bit of a hassle. II  | (t - c) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Feedback On Additional Information I have added under the "History" and "Controversy" sections.
Hi, I would greatly appreciate feedback regarding the additional information I have added/edited. I added to the "History" section, and created the "Controversy" section. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy0515 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but as they stand at the moment, the history and controversy sections read very strangely because of the misuse of the present tense and a few other problems. I suspect that English is not your first language so please don't take it as an attack. 94.9.83.13 (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Factual issues relating to lawsuits
I am a representative of a former Purdue executive, and I am providing information in an effort to improve the quality of this page. I will not directly edit the Purdue Pharma page, and I ask for other Wikipedia editors' help in enacting these suggestions.

The source relied upon by user:Recurring dreams about the May 2007 settlement looks like it is from a news aggregator site, and it gets some facts wrong. Specifically, the details about the Purdue executives' settlement is misleading in that it suggests that the executives pleaded guilty to a felony and had intent to defraud. Suggested language, in place of the paragraph beginning "In May 2007...":

"In May 2007 the company pleaded guilty to misleading the public about Oxycontin's risk of addiction, and agreed to pay $600 million in one of the largest pharmaceutical settlements in U.S. history. Its president, top lawyer, and former chief medical officer pleaded guilty as individuals to a no-fault midemeanor, based upon their status as responsible corporate officers, and agreed to pay a total of $34.5 million in fines.  There was no assertion that any of them had either the intent to defraud, or knowledge of the acts of lower-level Purdue employees that were the basis of the charges.  The three executives were sentenced to 400 hours of community service."

Sources:
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051000892.html
 * http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19877184/ns/health-health_care/t/oxycontin-maker-execs-fined-million/

Thanks for your attention.

71.167.226.157 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)