I always love it when GSK attempt to cover themselves in garlands, particularly after being fined $3 billion for, amongst other things, marketing deathly drugs to children.
The Washington Post recently ran an article entitled, "As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias." The article was heavily critical of Glaxo's bias when it came to reporting all the facts in clinical trials.
The Washington Post article centred around a 2006 report that compared three diabetes drugs, one of which was Glaxo's Avandia. The reported concluded:
"We now have clear evidence from a large international study that the initial use of [Avandia] is more effective than standard therapies" - Lawson Macartney, Senior Vice President of GlaxoSmithKline
What Macartney failed to add was the trial, according to the Washington Post, "had been funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and each of the 11 authors had received money from the company. Four were employees and held company stock. The other seven were academic experts who had received grants or consultant fees from the firm."
The article, to date, has prompted 645 reader comments, the majority of which are highly critical of GlaxoSmithKline.
So, in a massive PR [Yawn] exercise, Glaxo have responded with the usual roll-out of "we don't do this anymore".
Jack the Ripper [presumed dead] was a notorious unidentified serial killer during the late 1800's. His murdering spree, which some believe to be 5 women, involved the mutilation of his victims.
Can you imagine if, during the late 1800's, Jack admitted these killings and issued a press release stating that he was a good man now and didn't kill any more? Furthermore, can you imagine if Jack had been caught by the investigative police force at the time and fined rather than imprisoned for his crimes?
Jack the Ripper was a deplorable man [could have been a woman, although I doubt it] who carried out heinous acts against vulnerable women. Could we, as a nation of sane mind been forgiving if Jack had publicly announced that he had turned over a new leaf?
There are many critics of GlaxoSmithKline, I remember one blogger many years ago using the abbreviation GSK to form Global Serial Killers - He [could have been a she, although I doubt it] was pretty much on the money.
Let's take a look at Glaxo's response to the Washington Post article.
Let's also take a look at how Jack would have made a similar statement.
One can only imagine that Jack the Ripper would have wrote the following:
Glaxo will argue that their drugs and vaccines have saved millions of lives world-wide. Jack may have argued that his reluctance to kill anymore could have also saved lives.