October 22, 2014

Glaxo to Stop Paying Doctors for Drug Promotion

pin it button Glaxo to Stop Paying Doctors for Drug Promotion

promote drugs Glaxo to Stop Paying Doctors for Drug Promotion

Glaxo Says It Will Stop Paying Doctors to Promote Drugs

By Dr. Mercola

It is entirely legal for drug companies to pay medical professionals to promote their products, and this practice is widespread in the drug industry.

After all, as the New York Times reported, “doctors are most likely to value the advice of trusted peers,” which is why drug companies are known to invest heavily in paying physicians to speak about their products to other physicians (often at medical conferences).

The conflict of interest within this practice is obvious, which is why the drug industry often keeps quiet on their actual payments, as do the medical professionals involved. Now, in a first for any major drug company, British drug maker GlaxoSmithKline has announced that it is putting an end to this and other dubious business practices.

Glaxo to Stop Paying Doctors for Drug Promotion

Last month, Glaxo’s chief executive Andrew Witty announced the company would no longer pay health care professionals to promote its products or the diseases they treat to “audiences who can prescribe or influence prescribing.” Also set to be discontinued is the practice of paying for doctors to attend medical conferences (a practice that is already banned in the US but is still allowed in other countries).

Glaxo also plans to stop compensating its sales representatives based on the number of prescriptions that doctors write, instead saying that they will base their pay on technical knowledge, quality of service they provide and other factors.

This move was actually required as part of a corporate integrity agreement Glaxo made with the US Justice Department in 2011, but it only applies to the US. Glaxo now plans to extend the policy globally.

The new plan, which is expected to take effect worldwide by 2016, is said to be the culmination of a yearlong effort “to try and make sure we stay in step with how the world is changing,” according to Witty. But some believe it may simply be “a desperate attempt to deflect attention from recent scandals” that have plagued the drug giant…

Glaxo Paid the Largest Health Fraud Settlement in US History

In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) plead guilty in the largest health fraud settlement in US history. The company was fined $3 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability charges related to illegal drug marketing and withholding information about health hazards associated with its diabetes drug Avandia and others, including Paxil and Wellbutrin. According to the US Justice Department, GlaxoSmithKline:

1. Unlawfully marketed the antidepressant Paxil to children and adolescents.

The drug is FDA approved for the treatment of depression in adults only. The complaint details how GSK manipulated the findings of one of these studies to reach the false conclusion that Paxil was effective against depression in adolescents.

A GSK employee also recommended revising a section of the study relating to side effects, removing the finding that serious side effects like worsening depression and hostility (suffered by 11 children in the study) were considered related to the treatment, and replacing it with a statement that headache (suffered by one participant) was the only side effect considered to be treatment-related.

The complaint calls the study, published in July 2001 in The Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, “false and misleading.” This fraudulent and misleading study was subsequently used by GSK to illegally promote Paxil for children and teens…

2. Unlawfully marketed the antidepressant Wellbutrin for weight loss and sexual dysfunction.

In a NPR radio interview, Carmen Ortiz, U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, stated that “GSK hired a public relations firm to create a buzz about getting skinny and how you could have more sex simply by using this drug… using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations to paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to a European pheasant hunt, to tickets for Madonna concerts.”

One of the most high-profile accounts involved television celebrity Dr. Drew, who reportedly received $275,000 from GSK to promote Wellbutrin to treat sexual dysfunction associated with depression even though it hasn’t been proven effective for this purpose.

3. From 2001 through September 2007, failed to report safety data relating to clinical experience and other information as required by law to the FDA for the diabetes drug Avandia.

As previously reported, Avandia has been found to be profoundly dangerous—a fact hidden by GSK for over 10 years, as they knew it would adversely affect sales. This was revealed in a Senate Finance Committee report, released by Max Baucus and Charles E. Grassley in February 2010. The report also asked why the FDA allowed a clinical trial of Avandia to continue even after the agency estimated the drug had caused an estimated 83,000 heart attacks between 1999 and 2007.

GlaxoSmithKline Is Embroiled in Alleged Kickback Allegations in China

In 2012, China’s pharmaceutical market grew by 20 percent, a hefty increase now believed to be at least partly the result of years’ worth of bribery and scandal. GlaxoSmithKline, in particular, has faced above-average growth in the region, with its stock outperforming its competitor’s nearly 2 to 1 in 2012.

The company’s super growth appears to be backed by illegal marketing strategies, which actually encourage bribery. Allegations have been made, in fact, that GSK paid kickbacks to doctors, hospitals, and government officials, using travel agencies as middlemen to carry out the illegal acts. Doctors and government officials reportedly received perks such as travel, cash and even sexual favors that, when combined, amounted to nearly $5 billion, according to some reports.

Four Chinese GSK executives have been detained and accused of bribe collaboration so far in the six-month long investigation. British national Mark Reilly, GSK’s head of Chinese operations, reportedly left China in June 2013. Like most other drug companies,

GSK is no stranger to criminal allegations and convictions. So their recent announcement that they are ending two of the most controversial practices common to the drug industry does raise some eyebrows. Is this leopard really changing its spots… or are other motives at play?

Obviously, with their reputation increasingly tarnished by their 2012 $3-billion settlement and the ongoing bribery investigation in China, they could use all the positive PR they can get. As reported by Forbes, GSK may be simply doing some damage control, betting that what they lose in doctor drug promotions they’ll regain by bolstering their ailing reputation.

“…studies have shown that a company’s value as measured by market capitalization increases when its reputation is enhanced and that non-financial indicia of reputation are critically important tools that support the ability to charge premium prices and ensure access to capital markets. So it’s not a bad thing, or even necessarily financially disadvantageous, for executives to think broadly about societal benefit when managing corporations…”

Huge Fines Are Not Enough to Deter Drug Companies from Breaking the Law

After GSK paid its “dues” in the form of a $3-billion settlement and has followed through with its corporate integrity agreement to stop compensating its sales force based on doctors’ numbers of written prescriptions, it might appear that they are now changing their tune, straightening up and flying right.

But as a new observation piece published in the British Medical Journal points out, even with escalating criminal and civil penalties, international drug companies are not being deterred from breaking the law. Even after paying enormous fines and being monitored under mandated corporate integrity agreements, many drug companies go on to commit additional criminal acts. The review goes so far as to state that “commission of such criminal and civil violations has become part of their business models.”

“Are criminal and civil penalties of hundreds of millions of dollars an important deterrent to law breaking by international drug companies? Further, would external monitoring in the form of US government mandated corporate integrity agreements (CIA) to prevent recurrences of such illegal activities, lasting five years after being signed, be an additional deterrent? Yes in both cases, but only if the size of the penalties outweighed the companies’ gains while violating the laws and only if enforcement of the CIAs were effective.

Unfortunately, neither is the case. This evaluation is based on the recent, sharp escalation in the frequency with which many giant multinational drug companies repeatedly engage in illegal criminal and civil activity after previously paying enormous fines and despite monitoring under CIAs. It seems that for some companies, commission of such criminal and civil violations has become part of their business models.”

Are You Wondering What Your Doctor Has Been Paid?

Beginning in 2014, you will be able to determine if a health care provider you trust is actually on the drug industry’s payroll, thanks to a new federal law that entails the following:

  • Drug and medical device companies will be required to report and disclose all payments (including stock options, research grants, knickknacks, consulting fees, travel expenses, and more) to physicians. Unfortunately, payments to nurses, physician assistants, and other medical professionals will not have to be disclosed
  • The information will be displayed in an online government database that you will be able to search

In the meantime, you can search ProPublica’s database to see the disclosed payments made to physicians in your state. Many of the most prestigious universities, including Harvard, are now banning their staff from receiving money from drug companies for speaking, and this new disclosure requirement will hopefully push more institutions in that direction.

Breaking the drug industry’s stranglehold on the conventional medical industry will not be easy — after all, the drug industry spends nearly twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development — but the tide is beginning to turn. Increasing numbers of people are now waking up to these harsh realities, and you, being among those who are informed, can help share this knowledge with others. More than 1.5 million people receive this newsletter, and together, we can make a huge difference.

The ultimate goal is to have a critical mass of people refuse the unnecessarily dangerous and counterproductive solutions currently offered by conventional medicine, as this will be the powerful stimulus to generate authentic change. You can also act now, on a personal level, by making the necessary lifestyle changes that will allow you to take control of your health, instead of leaving it in the hands of the drug industry.

Read the full article here: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/01/08/glaxosmithkline-drug-promotion.aspx

Confessions 20of 20an 20Rx 20Drug 20Pusher Glaxo to Stop Paying Doctors for Drug Promotion

Free Shipping Available for this book!
Learn More


0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Prescription Drugs Now Factor in Higher Percentage of Fatal Car Crashes Than Alcohol or Marijuana

Prescription Drugs Now Factor in Higher Percentage of Fatal Car Crashes Than Alcohol or Marijuana

Pin It

Prescription drugs and multiple drug combinations are frequently found in the blood of drivers involved in fatal car crashes on US roads, according to a new study in Public Health Reports. Drivers today are more likely to test positive for drugs than drivers 20 years ago, and drugged drivers are now likely to be older than 50. Gone are the days when drunk drivers were our only concern—alcohol is but one of MANY drugs that can make you dangerous behind the wheel. And now many people are on multiple drug cocktails, especially prescription drugs, which multiplies their impairment.

Use of Aborted Human Cell Lines in Vaccines Linked to Rise in Autism

Use of Aborted Human Cell Lines in Vaccines Linked to Rise in Autism

Pin It

Researchers from the Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute recently published a study showing a correlation with the introduction of human fetal cell lines used as contaminants in childhood vaccines, and the rapid rise of autism. The study was published in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, an open access Academic Journal.

I reviewed the full length research paper and found the methodology of the research very thorough. The researchers tracked not only the introduction of aborted fetal cell lines introduced into vaccines used in the childhood vaccination scheduled in the United States, but they also tracked standards for autism diagnoses as published in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This manual is used in the field of psychology and has undergone several revisions. One of the claims made for the rising rate of autism in America today is that it is primarily related to changes of diagnosis. This study used sophisticated software to account for these changes in autism diagnosis, and found:

“Autistic disorder change points years are coincident with introduction of vaccines manufactured using human fetal cell lines, containing fetal and retroviral contaminants, into childhood vaccine regimens. This pattern was repeated in the US, UK, Western Australia and Denmark. Thus, rising autistic disorder prevalence is directly related to vaccines manufactured utilizing human fetal cells. Increased paternal age and DSM revisions were not related to rising autistic disorder prevalence.”

Boston Nurses Speak Out Against Mandatory Flu Shots

Boston Nurses Speak Out Against Mandatory Flu Shots

Pin It

Last month (September 2014) the Massachusetts Nurses Association sued Brigham and Women’s Hospital over a new policy that required nurses to receive the annual flu vaccine as a condition for employment.

The nurses were, of course, criticized by the medical establishment. They were accused of putting their own interests above the needs of patients. Lynn Nicholas, president of the Massachusetts Hospital Association, stated that the nurses were: “putting a pet peeve of theirs above the safety and well-being of the patients they serve, their families, visitors to the hospital, and their colleagues.”

Pet peeve? Really?

When nurses all across the United States and Canada are willing to sacrifice their jobs and careers to avoid the annual flu shot, it is time to sit up and take notice. This is obviously something much more than a “pet peeve.”

Trish Powers, representing Brigham nurses in Boston fired back a comment that The Boston Globe published. It is titled “Brigham nurses know flu vaccine can do harm.”

Gardasil: The Day Our Daughter’s Life Changed

Gardasil: The Day Our Daughter’s Life Changed

Pin It

The Gardasil vaccine has changed Skylee’s life in so many ways and we do not know how many more symptoms will show up and change her life even more than it has already done. Our whole family has been affected by this vaccine and all of our lives have been turned upside down that terrible day in 2013.

If only the doctors would recognize Skylee has gone from being a healthy young girl to an invalid when the only major change in her life occurred on the day she had that single shot of Gardasil.

Will There Be An Ebola Outbreak in America?

Will There Be An Ebola Outbreak in America?

Pin It

So here is what inquiring minds want to know:

Why did U.S. health officials in Atlanta and on the ground in Africa ignore the exploding Ebola epidemic last spring?

Why did U.S. government officials fly American aid workers infected with Ebola to the U.S. rather than treating them with experimental drugs at hospitals in Africa?

Why did the U.S. government press the United Nations to adopt a resolution calling for no restrictions on international travel from Liberia and other Ebola-stricken countries?

Why did the Centers for Disease Control, supposedly the world’s leading infection control agency, fail to immediately assist Texas health officials when the first case of Ebola was diagnosed on US soil to guarantee that, at a minimum, the kind of infection control measures used in most nursing homes in America would be carried out?

Why has the Director of the CDC repeatedly stated that the only way a person can transmit Ebola is if they have a fever and said that people cannot get Ebola unless they have direct contact with the body fluids of an infected person – but that under no circumstances is Ebola airborne – when he knows, or should know, those statements could be false?

And why are experimental Ebola vaccines being fast tracked into human trials and promoted as the final solution rather than ramping up testing and production of the experimental ZMapp drug that has already saved the lives of several Ebola infected Americans?

A logical conclusion is that some people in industry, government and the World Health Organization did not want the Ebola outbreak to be confined to several nations in Africa because that would fail to create a lucrative global market for mandated use of fast tracked Ebola vaccines by every one of the seven billion human beings living on this planet.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!