Talk:Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Is Aleya the same as Zaltrap?
Can one or both cause increased hypertension? Roses4joanne (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"tech company" category
User:Castncoot - "tech company" = Technology company = information technology, like twitter. the timelines and investment it takes to get to profitability are entirely different than in biotechnology. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * see also A Tale of Two Startup Worlds: Biotech And Tech VC Ecosystems and Why Biotech Startups are Not the Same as Tech Startups and Patent fight: Tech vs. pharma, round one (the role of IP is extremely different) and a zillion other sites. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is entirely irrelevant and unreliable as people's opinion. Your definition of "technology" is strictly WP:OR and contradicts the inclusiveness of biotechnology as technology, especially as defined on that article's page. I also can't understand why you're deleting this good-faith "see also" entry (!), and Regeneron is not being called a "start-up" in this context. Unless you can come up with a more reliably sourced justification of your OR reversion (which seems implausible), the edit I made should stand. By the way, profitability as you alluded to in your edit summary and above here is irrelevant to the whole discussion and not a justification. Castncoot (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the distinction between biotech and tech industries is common knowledge to people in both fields and I gave you three links above. Read them. There is almost nothing the same about these industries.  The skills needed to work in them, the R&D required, the product timeline (both to get to market, and once you are in the market how long a product remains viable), the regulatory environment, the way people actually pay for the products, the role of IP.... and I am just getting started.  Really.  Go read.  You might find this helpful - it is about the awkward thing happening with Theranos, 23andme, and uBiome as folks in silicon valley try to cross over into actual biotech by way of health IT but riding on the tech business model.  Not pretty.   Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're grasping for straws here. The first is merely a blog, the second refers to start-up terminology (not the point of contention here), the third actually supports my terminology and simply substitutes the term "tech" for "Big Tech", and the fourth - well, that's just going off way into the sunset. What I am completely taken aback by, however, is why you are attacking such an innocuous and good-faith "see also" edit, of all things? Biotechnology is *a* type of technology, nothing else is implied with this completely benign and constructive edit. Castncoot (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No straws, am talking about the RW. It is extremely misleading to readers to say that Regeneron is a tech company.  If you want to create a list article Biotech companies of New York and add a see also to it, i will not object a whit. Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this is Wikipedia, not your own interpretation of the terms. Everything you've said so far constitutes WP:OR. Neither the biotechnology nor technology page conflicts with biotech being called technology. Neither does the technology company article which you've encased in Wikilinks and is an extremely sparse article, by the way. Can you provide any real evidence that biotechnology is somehow not technology, by Wikipedia's criteria? Castncoot (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Jytdog, let's see if we can compromise here. Do you have an objection to this entry in See also, written as such: Biotech companies in the New York City metropolitan region? Castncoot (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is bad. Really, they are entirely different industries.  You might as well have:  List of restaurants and dry cleaners in NYC.  I appreciate the effort to kind of compromise.  I don't know how to mediate this.  You are just dead wrong here.  Hmm.   Maybe this will help you.  I have talked plenty with folks in NYC EDC - they have entirely different strategies for biotech/pharma and tech, and discuss them separately.   See this page Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * maybe you will find this helpful, especially contrasted with this. The industries are doing differently because they are different, and fundamentally so. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you are resorting to your own interpretation of... ??? Where does this source even deny that biotechnology is technology? Until then, all you have is WP:OR. Castncoot (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no way you have stopped to read the links I have provided; you are replying way too fast. Not reading and hollering OR is pretty lame.  Anyway, more:  here is an in-depth review of the different kinds of things NYC has done to foster these two very different industries.  See this about fundamental differences in common terms, like "API" and how people stumble over them going between the two worlds.  Anyway, I will give you time to read, and won't reply til tomorrow or later.  Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I read them all and remained unconvinced. Please follow the ongoing discussion at Talk:Tech companies in the New York metropolitan area. Castncoot (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For anyone who wants to know, pre 2012 this company was a pump and dump nootropics/tech company. When Martin Shkreli first started working for corrupt and criminal stockbrokers Regeneron Pharmaceuticals was at the center of an SEC investigation. The pre 2012 company was a scam "tech company" making fake drugs, it is linked pre-2012 to many other shady companies and shady stockbrokers (probably why that history is being gently scrubbed). If one is interested in seeing how deep these Wall Street crimes go you will understand why there can never be an investigation led by the US government that will uncover anything but minor crimes. The Impartial Truth (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Could have a Pipeline or Product pipeline section
eg. could note FDA breakthrough status for PD-1 inhibitor REGN2810 (INN=Cemiplimab) after clinical trial results. - Rod57 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

redirect
shouldn't REGN-EB3 have its own article per ...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)




 * Or be part of an "Ebola treatments" article with the other effective one. The Language Learner (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps experimental Ebola treatments. It was tried but didn't work if I read that correctly? The Impartial Truth (talk) 06:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Improve citations or revise paragraph about BARDA contract
Right now, the article says:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, in early 2020, Regeneron made a deal with the US-government Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority that the government would fund 80% of the costs for Regeneron to develop and manufacture Coronavirus disease 2019 treatments, and Regeneron would retain the right to set prices and control production. This deal was criticized in the New York Times. Such deals are not unusual for routine drug development in the American pharmaceutical market.[9]"

The cited article, [9], asserts the lack of price controls, but does not provide evidence for that assertion; further, it is an opinion piece. Also, the referenced contract is a 10-year contract from October 2017. I'm going to adjust for citations, but if the original thrust is true it needs better substantiation. Elehack (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * A 10 year contract for a disease they have clearly stated will not last that long? When it is riddled with information like that, which doesn't make complete sense to a reasonable person, more demands for citations and revisions will arise. People will think either the article is wrong about the contract or there is a deliberate effort concealing something from them. The Impartial Truth (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)