Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

Thursday, June 21, 2007

MHRA's role in Alli?

So what was the role of the MHRA in passing GlaxoSmithKline's new shit pill Alli?

Surely they saw the clinical trial data this time or did GlaxoSmithKline just show them the positive results... as they always do when trying to launch a new product.

I'm fascinated by the name 'Alli' - Ironically it is pronounced 'A LIE' and not Ali, as in Muhammed Ali.

Personally, I think the GlaxoSmithKline marketing team dropped a huge bollock on this one. Maybe, Alli is a subliminal message or a piss-take to the general public, meaning 'We can produce shit drugs and still get away with it?

This table intrigues me:

Take a look at the adverse event section, Fecal Urgency.

22.1% of patients felt the need to take a dump whilst being 'under the influence' of Alli

6.7% of patients who NEVER took Alli (Placebo) also felt the need to take a rather large plop into the porcelain bowl.

What is the significance?

Are GlaxoSmithKline trying to weigh up the statistics with a natural urge here?

So some guy takes a sugar pill and thinks 'Hmmm, I know I may have took Alli and I know that it may cause me to poo... strangely, I feel like a poo now'

What are GlaxoSmithKline trying to say here?

Look, it clearly shows that people who took the sugar pill suffered with psychosomatic problems because they knew Alli caused the sensation of wanting a crap!

What utter bollocks!

Yet again, one of GlaxoSmithKline's drugs has slipped through those great minds at the MHRA.

Youtube and blogs are full of bad publicity for this drug - even rival pharmaceutical companies are making mock videos and posting them on youtube.

It's been a bad couple of months for GlaxoSmithKline what with the Avandia scandal and now this little shit popper called Alli...

...and I'm loving every minute of it