Talk:Abbott Laboratories/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Abbott Laboratories. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Organization

Abbott BioResearch Center homepage is "the Worcestor-based biotechnology drug discovery and biologics manufacturing unit of Abbott labs." I'm putting this here for consideration of its addition to the article in some fashion.

Number of Employees

There appears to be a discrepancy on th epage concerning the number of employees. The infobar says >60,000 while the intro says ~56,000. Can anyone clarify which is correct?

According to HR the number is in the 58,000 region.

Abbott's Website states they have 60,000 employees

Abbott and Capital Punishment

There is some controversy regarding the role of Abbott Laboratories Inc. as the sole supplier of sodium thiopental, one of three drugs used in the lethal injection process. The author might want to add this to the "Controversies" section of the article.

Further information: http://www.ncadp.org/html/report.htm http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~archives/ABOLISH/apr02/1892.html

Hit the Brakes!!!

Time out, the "Controversies" section sounds like it was written by a rebellious teenager! I'm putting multiple tags in there. (Though at least there are citations.) --JD79 00:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have different opinion. A rich company is not always an ethical company. Especially a very rich company can make an unimaginable adverse impact with their bad deeds. Wikipedia should function as a history recorder of both sides. So, bad stories should be recorded in the same as way as good stories, as long as both of them are TRUE stories. --Sarodp 02:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Adverse drug effects are normal for ANY drug (look at the warning sections of Tylenol!). Listing adverse effects is not indicative of unethical behavior... and those are the only things cited. The rest is just innuendo. I would recommend removing the offending sections; adverse effects listed should be in the individual drug pages. 129.98.48.240 14:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is a controversy section there should also be one the good actions they have done. Such as the donating of millions of dollars of product and drugs days after Katrina when dozens of trucks were re-routed to the area and the millions of dollars of drugs and product after the tsunamis in the Pacific. Also their Aids partnership with Magic Johnson's foundation or their own Abbott Fund program. They are a huge coporation and do unethical things at times but they also do a lot of good.

The problem is that the Safety concerns section is too sepecific. In order to be useful the section must be better summarized and not simply a list of lawsuits. All drugs have side effects! These should be included under the individual pages for the drugs not listed here. M stone 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone Issues

I put a NPOV tag on the Controversies section, because I'm uncomfortable with how it reads right now, specifically regarding fairness of tone. Even though the facts are presented in a fairly straightforward manner, the language being used is accusatory, in my opinion, especially when it comes to Kaletra. Yes, what they are doing with Kaletra is crappy. But, Abbott is a profit-making corporation, and their actions are justifiable in that context. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I don't think it's OK as is. Gabefarkas (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Couldn't believe that a Pharma company doesn't have a controversy section. And oh look, it was taken out. It needs to be re-added and stripped of weasel words. 12.234.226.200 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Awards ???

The tone of this section is very biased and too much in favor of Abbott. While Abbott still have a lot of bad business practices and many unethical and illegal issues. Also, many of these awards are insignificant and should be deleted.

It is an awards section. It should be in favor of the company because most people don't give out awards for negative actions. THey give them out for good things they do.

Abbott won the QUEENS award for Industry but don't think she wants that listed alongside some parochial magazines favourite company. (----)

- *2007 Abbott anounces intention to sell UK manufacturing site to Aesica (a private equity owned API manufacturer). This was added by me and then removed why it is true and is not based on conjecture on the relative merits of drugs being safe or not?

Please sign your posts here ...

One cannot have a discussion if one does not know who is saying what ... please sign all Talk, thanks. 98.193.8.74 (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Current major edit in resolution, after reversal by bot

Here is what I said in support of the edit, and reversing the bot action (taken because viewed as possible vandalism):

I am a faculty member and not [this co.'s] employee, nor do I have a consulting relationship with the co.

The edit is consistent with discussion that suggests that the thrust of the removed section "Controversies", creates an imbalance-- no company "Milestones" or "Historical Impacts" are mentioned, only an array of pharma negatives. Hence, this section was removed.

Editors should look to "Good Germs, Bad Germs." by Jessica Snyder Sachs, and at erythromycin therein, for a balanced view of chemotherapeutics in infectious disease. (Abbott is a first-tier provider of erythromycin derivatives, HIV protease inhibitors, etc.)

More striking, editors should google "HIV mortality CDC slide 4" and go to the first hit (CDC.gov), and look at Slides 4 and following to see the impact of HIV retrovirals on mortality due to HIV. The concept of pseudo-symmetric HIV protease inhibitors originated with a scientist at Abbott.

  [ This is:  www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/mortality/index.htm ]

Without such informed balance, the Controversies section should remain out. (I do not have immediate time to produce a balanced section.)

Finally, I did not sign in to sign the edit, because ... I don't want to become personally targeted by someone who has a grievance with this particular pharma, which the author of the Controversies section clearly seems to have (see Talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.8.74 (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Further suggestion for "Milestones and Controversies" section

The FDA Consent Decree (c. 2000) should appear, both for its health / regulatory and business significances.

1997 IPOA National Inventor of the Year should be mentioned, in relation to Abbott and Merck's being co-awardees for HIV protease inhibitors.

Acquisition of Knoll by Abbott (c. 2001), and with it access to adalimumab (Humira) the first human monoclonal antibody approved for use in Europe and the U.S., and its impact on arthritis therapy, should appear (for context, www.arthritis-pain.com/research/tumornecrosis.htm).

Abbott as a developer of fluoroquinolones should be noted, both in terms of utility/impact, and in relation to reported toxicities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.8.74 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Inline citations: No footnotes

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This should be reorganized.

I only moved the history section, but I think some parts should be reorganized or deleted.

Division structure, Management structure and management practises

Are those sections even relevant for an encyclopedia? There is no citation (I just added the Sciencecareers one). Also it says in "organisation" that the firm divides in 6 divisions, and then again in "Division structure" in 3 main divisions.

Introduction

Should the last 2 paragraphs be there? It seems to come straight from abbott's brochure. "world leader", "immediate and accurate", ... Kaaylim (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits of September 12

@Ohnoitsjamie: I hear you on the spamming issue, but these particular articles look like straight up news stories. If you don't like these sources, could you at least find and cite the appropriate Abbott press release so as not to leave unsourced material in the article? Because the next thing that will happen is another editor will come along and delete the info as unsourced, and we will lose content. Given that it is almost certainly factually correct, this would seem to be a high price to pay for getting rid of a historically problematic source that appears legitimately used in the present case. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The material sourced by the spammer is in every case I've seen so far something you could easily get from any wire service. It's going to be time-consuming as it is to get rid of mess by myself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that its work, but it seems like a reasonable compromise given that you are the one who wants to get rid of the source, which seems reliable to me. Its not like they are sourcing an activist group blog or a gossip page. However this source may have been abused in the past, I don't understand what it is that makes you believe that it is not a reliable source for the acquisition of two small companies. Thanks, Formerly 98 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to replace every reference that I remove, as none of the content that the references were associated with was in any way controversial (i.e., announcements of mergers, and similar things that fill up wire services on a daily basis). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abbott Laboratories. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure

Please accept the edits to the Abbott Laboratories page (May 24, 2017). My name is Scott Stoffel, and I work at Abbott in Corporate Public Affairs, and the edits I am providing are all factual updates to this Wikipedia page. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to access my contact information, found here: http://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/utilities/media-contacts.html. Stoff1888 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abbott Laboratories. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

i was wondering if I can find ENSURE GOLD POWDER NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT FOR AN ADULT 1.6 KG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.1.207.129 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)