Talk:Gilead Sciences

The hyperlink to Micheal Riordan is wrong. The statement says he was a 29-year old doctor when the company was founded, and that the company was found in 1987. The hyperlinked article is for a Micheal Riordan who was an attorney and police officer and who died in 1967.

I'll bring this discussion here before reverting. For the sake of convenience, I'll just adapt my reasoning below for these two additions, reverted by Zefr, here, as originally outlined on my talk page. I am somewhat bewildered by the edit summary's note that news reports are not proof when it comes to tax avoidance. Wikipedia is not about truth, but what is reported in reliable sources, and in addition to the two cited in the original edit — the Washington Post and Stat News — there is also coverage in Bloomberg, The Chicago Tribune, The Journal] (Ireland), and industry outlets like Pharmacy Times. Frankly, there is not a whole lot of proof needed here; it is widely accepted that Ireland is a tax haven, there are no, as far as I am aware, RS's indicating that the underlying report is inaccurate in that regard, and so the only possibly controversial issue at play is the volume of money involved. Again, no RS's or even statements from Gilead contest the number. In short: there are a litany of sources discussing the report and its conclusions, my original edit made sure to specify the underlying report's source and ideological bias, and inclusion in a section about tax avoidance — which has spawned numerous articles outside of the topic of the 2016 Americans for Tax Fairness report — seems entirely acceptable. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 01:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This revert was made to contest non-neutral emphasis from the four previous edits: a) tax avoidance (or evasion) is a federal corporate crime for which there is no governmental source indicating GS has been held accused or liable; b) a report by Americans for Tax Fairness, summarized by a newspaper, is perpetuation of a biased opinion, which becomes WP:SYNTH; c) the price of remdesivir is summarized in its article, without using the inflammatory term, "gouging". These problems arise when editing favors use of news sources, which can be used to expand interpretation of information from regulatory or scientific organizations, but should not be used to support opinions and bias. For the encyclopedia, we have to write facts into an article, supported by WP:RSCONTEXT, not news that sells a product - see WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOTNEWS. Zefr (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I have several things to note. I'll start out with the tax avoidance issue. First, generally speaking, I am quite confused by your definition of synthesis. SYNTH is the combination of multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Both of the sources I cited were clear in their conclusions, namely, that an advocacy group created a report that made a conclusion about tax avoidance. Per the Washington Post, "The California-based pharmaceutical giant moved some of its assets to Ireland, apparently allowing income from some U.S. drug sales to be shifted abroad and taxed at a lower rate, according to Americans for Tax Fairness, a liberal advocacy group. It has also avoided nearly $10 billion in taxes by not bringing some of its foreign profits back to the United States, the group says." And, per STAT News, "By transferring certain key assets to Ireland, Gilead was able to take advantage of tax laws that allowed some US sales to be shifted overseas and yield a significantly lower tax rate. Those overseas profits, meanwhile, mushroomed to $28.5 billion, and Gilead was able to escape paying $9.7 billion in US taxes last year, according to a new report published on Wednesday by the Americans for Tax Fairness, an advocacy organization." Compare this with the original wording in the edits you reverted: "A 2016 report by the liberal think tank Americans for Tax Fairness similarly argued that Gilead was able to avoid up up to $10 billion in taxes on U.S. sales through transfer pricing and other mechanisms." Nothing within that statement is at all novel or unoriginal. Now, as for "perpetuation of a biased opinion" — that is an entirely separate issue from SYNTH and has to do with neutrality. But neutrality is not saying things in the nicest, least controversial way possible; it is cataloguing controversy as it is documented in reliable sources. To borrow from WP:IMPARTIAL, Wikipedia describes disputes. My edits reflected the description of the controversy as it played out in various media outlets: an advocacy group with a bias put out an research article, and news editors at several different media decided the report and its contents were at least theoretically sound enough to repeat, with attribution, as I did in my edit.

Before moving on, I want to emphasize that tax avoidance is not a federal crime, and there is a specific reason I chose that wording as opposed to tax evasion; please see those respective articles. Nevertheless, it is highly scrutinized and controversial because it may be seen as an unethical shirking of civic duty. In other words, then, there is not going to be a government source for prosecution of tax evasion, and that is not at all what the underlying sources were claiming. What they were claiming, based on the underlying report, that Gilead uses offshore structures and accounting maneuvers to avoid paying taxes that would otherwise be paid in the United States. It's perfectly legal, and news media are the exact source you would find this sort of information in. There is not going to be peer-reviewed scientific literature about Gilead's specific tax avoidance unless it somehow becomes a unique innovator in that category.

Second, WP:NOTNEWS is entirely irrelevant here. To review the policy, the edits were not: (1) original reporting; (2) news reports ...routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities... — rather, this was a major event covered in half a dozen major, international news outlets, far from routine; (3) a who's who; or (4) celebrity gossip and diary. Your definition of NOTNEWS seems to just be that we should not report on things reported on in news media without peer reviewed sources or government documents backing them up. That is an entirely impossible standard in light of news media like the New York Times and others forming a bedrock of Wikipedia's reliable sources. The notion that we cannot repeat what is in news reports because it is not peer reviewed or published by a government agency leaves us with very little to work with outside the sciences, arguably, because as WP:NEWSORG states, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Now, the sources I cited are careful to contextualize their coverage as the result of a third-party report (if they didn't, they'd be plagiarizing and pretending to do an investigation/research they did not do). In this case, then, the statement of fact is that AfTF wrote a report that accused Gilead of tax avoidance. The content I wrote mirrored that contextualization, the reliability of which was reified by the inclusion in several reliable, independent, internationally prominent news sources. Washington Post does not write about every crank report generated by the hordes of thinktanks and lobbying groups in D.C.; the inclusion in such media is an indicator that the contents of the report are not pure fantasy. That is entirely fair game for inclusion in an encyclopedic article about a corporation, because it represents a notable portion of its overall coverage in the media.

Re: remdesivir pricing — the remdesivir article is quite telling, because the section you refer relies primarily on references to Gilead's own press releases, which is problematic for obvious reasons. Naturally, then, it avoids the term price gouging. The question, though, is whether or not at least some reliable, independent sources portray Gilead's behavior as price gouging generally and with respect to remdesivir. The answer is yes on both counts, and my edits to the top of the section still adhered to WP:IMPARTIAL because I made sure to use terms like "accused" and other attributives. The sources already in the article should be sufficient to demonstrate how activists and observers have accused Gilead of price gouging with respect to Truvada. Reliable sources similarly recount how concerns of price gouging were have been raised re: remdesivir, e.g. here ("multiple organizations voiced disapproval over the company’s pursuit of the FDA’s orphan status, citing price-gouging concerns"). With proper attribution — i.e. emphasizing that these are accusations, it is entirely appropriate to include remdesivir under that umbrella. You're not going to get a news organization saying "This is price gouging" because the definition thereof is subjective, but you are going to get news organizations noting that large number of activists groups, specialists, and/or other commentariat think it is, and that is notable controversy.

I am going to reinsert the reverted text tomorrow with revisions in light of this discussion and additional sourcing, and if you think it's still unacceptable, we can request outside opinion. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected — there is a peer reviewed article specifically discussing Gilead's tax avoidance, in the Arizona Law Review (including the specific phrasing "tax avoidance strategies like Gilead’s"). The article is cited in the updated tax avoidance section; diff here. I welcome edits that other editors believe will help improve it, whether in terms of WP:NEUTRAL or otherwise. Should Zefr feel that a complete reversion is necessary, the next step will presumably be to seek outside opinion. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes may be promotional in tone.

Specific text to be added or removed:

REMOVE: Second sentence in second paragraph of lead - “The original name was a reference to oligonucleotides, small strands of DNA used to target genetic sequences. Gilead held its initial public offering in 1992, and successfully developed drugs like Tamiflu and Vistide that decade.”

REPLACE WITH: “Since the early 2000s, the company has expanded from a biotechnology startup to a major pharmaceutical company through a series of acquisitions and investments. While it has faced criticism over the pricing of key drugs, Gilead participates in global health access initiatives, making certain therapies available in low- and middle-income countries.”

REMOVE: Part of first paragraph of lead - “, that focuses on researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir. Gilead is a member of the Nasdaq-100 and the S&P 100."

REPLACE WITH: ". The company develops medicines in the areas of virology, oncology, inflammation, and cell therapy. It is known for its antiviral therapies for HIV and viral hepatitis, and for its oncology portfolio, which includes treatments for solid tumors and blood cancers. These treatments include ex vivo and in vivo cell therapy."

References supporting changes:

https://www.biospectrumasia.com/news/41/24473/the-evolution-of-the-pharmaceutical-landscape-a-two-decade-journey-of-mergers-and-acquisitions.html

https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gilead-deal-cancer-drug-andrew-dickinson/588835/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/gilead-sciences-what-to-know

Reason for changes:

Streamline and update page and improve clarity

Thank you. GileadSciencesRequests (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: Some of the requested changes are currently written in a promotional tone. Please review WP:Neutral point of view and make changes where appropriate to follow this before reopening the request. Additionally, the proposed changes are removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist. I recommend eschewing any removal of text and rewriting your proposed additions in a more objective tone. Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @DiscoursesonLivvy. Thank you for your feedback. I will work on the tone of the text to add and respond with an update. GileadSciencesRequests (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. Set |answered=no to reactivate the request if necessary.

Hi again @DiscoursesonLivvy. Thank you again for your feedback. Based on your feedback, here is the updated request. This is to change the lead section.

Specific text to be added or removed:

REMOVE: Lead - current first paragraph

REPLACE WITH: “Gilead Sciences, Inc. (/ˈɡɪliəd/) is an American biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of cancer,[1] HIV/AIDS,[1] hepatitis B,[1] hepatitis C,[1] influenza,[F] and COVID-19.[1] The company develops medicines in the areas of virology,[2] oncology[3] including treatments for solid tumors and blood cancers,[4] inflammation,[5] and cell therapy including ex vivo and in vivo.[6][4]”

REMOVE: Lead - current second paragraph

REPLACE WITH: “In 1987, Michael L. Riordan founded the company as Oligogen,[G][7] but the name was changed to Gilead in 1988.[13] In 1992, Gilead held its initial public offering,[14][7] and it developed drugs including Tamiflu and Vistide[13] that decade. From the early 2000s, the company has grown from a biotechnology startup to a large pharmaceutical company through acquisitions and investments.[7][8][9] Gilead is a member of the Nasdaq-100 and the S&P 100.[10]”

REMOVE: Lead - current third paragraph

REPLACE WITH: Nothing. The current third paragraph can go away since the main content is included in the new second paragraph and Viread and Hepsera are detailed later on the page.

REMOVE: Lead - current fourth paragraph

REPLACE WITH: “Gilead has faced criticism for its high pricing of certain drugs in the United States relative to production cost and cost in the developing world, such as Sovaldi,[A][B][C][D][E] but it also participates in global health access making certain therapies available in low- and middle-income countries.[11][12]”

References supporting changes: 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/gilead-history-making-antiviral-treatments-from-hiv-to-coronavirus-2020-5 2. https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/gilead-pumps-virology-pipeline-drug-transporter-deal 3. https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/gilead-looks-long-term-cell-therapy-growth-maintains-very-high-trodelvy-confidence-despite 4. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/gilead-acquires-car-t-specialist-arcellx-for-7-8bn/ 5. https://medcitynews.com/2025/01/gilead-sciences-inflammation-immunology-leo-pharma-stat6-gild/ 6. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/gilead-unit-acquire-cell-therapy-developer-interius-350-million-2025-08-21/ 7. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/28/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-gilead-sciences-inc.aspx 8. https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/gilead-deal-cancer-drug-andrew-dickinson/588835/ 9. https://www.businessinsider.com/gilead-history-making-antiviral-treatments-from-hiv-to-coronavirus-2020-5 10. https://markets.businessinsider.com/index/components/s&p_100/g?miRedirects=1 11. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gilead-sciences-gild-reaches-deal-131044407.html 12. https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2024/10/02/gilead-hiv-prep-lenacapavir-pricing-pharmaceuticals-aids-licensing-patents/ 13. https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/gilead-sciences-what-to-know 14. https://247wallst.com/investing/2023/12/09/12-companies-that-had-their-ipos-in-1992-best-and-worst-performers/ A. https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawsuit-alleges-price-gouging-by-maker-of-hepatitis-drug-1418961024 (already on page) B. https://web.archive.org/web/20140218200421/http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/activists-pounce-1000-day-price-gileads-hep-c-wonder-drug-sovaldi/2013-12-09 (already on page) C. https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-270B-639 (already on page) D. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/senate-report-criticizes-gileads-pricing-strategy-for-sovaldi (already on page) E. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pharma-giant-profits-from-hiv-treatment-funded-by-taxpayers-and-patented-by-the-government/2019/03/26/cee5afb4-40fc-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html (already on page) F. https://pharmatimes.com/news/roche_settles_dispute_with_gilead_over_tamiflu_997546/ (already on page) G. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/profile-gilead-sciences-gilead-grows-up-2655081.php (already on page)

Reason for changes:

Streamline and update page and improve clarity Thank you. GileadJeff (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello community, I saw that @DiscoursesonLivvy is away due to a significant loss. I was sorry to learn that and hope she is doing better. In her absence, I'm posting here to see if anyone else can assist with this edit.

Thank you. GileadJeff (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see above for my request on April 21 and my follow-up on April 30. I realized this may not be showing in the edit request list due to initially being declined. Please advise. Thank you for your help. GileadJeff (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @GileadJeff, please note that editors are volunteers and responses may take some time. Thank you for re-adding the edit request template as this helps draw attention to more users. To help review the request I am posting it below using the {{textdiff}} template to make the differences clearer. For ease (and awareness for other editors) this is formatted without the references.

Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: I've made a couple of the changes. In the majority of cases the information in the lead in uncontroversial and doesn't need references as it is already supported in the main text. For ref [13] could you provide an alternate source - this one refers to the company website but the link given is inactive. I've left out offering therapies in low income countries for now, I feel this would need discussion in the main article before adding to the lead. The criticism section is developed, hence mentioning in the lead is reasonable. I can also defer to other editors. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Aloneinthewild. Thank you for your time and help with this. For ref [13], I found...

Regarding source 13. https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/gilead-sciences-what-to-know:

“name was changed to Gilead in 1988.[13]" - https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/profile-gilead-sciences-gilead-grows-up-2655081.php

"and it developed drugs including Tamiflu and Vistide[13]" - https://www.encyclopedia.com/books/politics-and-business-magazines/gilead-sciences-inc and https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7382934/

Thanks again. GileadJeff (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The sfgate source doesn't state that the name was changed in 1988 so we cannot use that. I also searched Pandemics, Pills, and Politics: Governing Global Health Security by Stefan Elbe and could not verify. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Aloneinthewild, I understand. I also couldn't find any additional articles that specifically state 1988 so that was the closest. Thank you again for your time and making these edits. I appreciate it. Is there anything else that happens with this request? Do I need to mark it complete or close it somehow? GileadJeff (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing else required, I've updated the request to answered. Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

In the “2020-” section in History, between the May 2025 and December 2025 paragraphs, please add the content below.

Specific text to be added:

“In June 2025, Gilead’s PrEP lenacapavir (marketed as Yeztugo in the U.S.) was approved by the FDA to prevent HIV infections.[1] In August 2025, the European Commission authorized lenacapavir (marketed as Yeytuo in Europe).[2][3] Prior to approval, lenacapavir proved almost 100% effective at preventing HIV in clinical trials.[1][2] Gilead’s history in HIV medicines includes pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and long-acting regimens.[4][5]”

References supporting changes:

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/06/18/hiv-epidemic-new-shot-fda-approval/84240744007/

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-approves-gileads-new-injection-preventing-hiv-2025-08-26/  

[3] https://hiv-druginteractions.org/site_updates/950

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/pharma-giant-profits-from-hiv-treatment-funded-by-taxpayers-and-patented-by-the-government/2019/03/26/cee5afb4-40fc-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html

[5] https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/gileads-long-acting-prep-yeztugo-takes-lifting-hiv-outlook-while-cell-therapy-declines

Reason for changes:

This latest medication and the company’s HIV work is significant and is not mentioned anywhere on the page.

Thank you. GileadJeff (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Needs to pass WP:MEDRS. 🄻🄰 13:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)