tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10459981.post6328081022280503991..comments2023-09-28T15:35:46.255+01:00Comments on <center>FIDDAMAN BLOG</center>: The Incompetence of the MHRAUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10459981.post-33739926202992851502008-03-06T17:31:00.000+00:002008-03-06T17:31:00.000+00:00Mind you, I've just read Kent's letter to Garnier,...Mind you, I've just read Kent's letter to Garnier, which you can find on Pharmalot's pages:<BR/><BR/>http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/03/glaxo-escapes-prosecution-over-paxil-in-uk/<BR/><BR/>I think it's a bit closer to the mark than the press release.<BR/><BR/>MattRadagasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14286529284742690239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10459981.post-38599770723971396402008-03-06T17:24:00.000+00:002008-03-06T17:24:00.000+00:00Anyway, why are we concentrating on the reporting ...Anyway, why are we concentrating on the reporting of adverse events? The SAE we're talking about is death - there's a more serious criminal offence on the statute books than withholding data, and one that certainly was in force at the time of alleged incidents in question.<BR/><BR/>And are we permitted to mention the word "fraud" in the same sentence as "GSK"? That October, 1998 memo seemed to state outright that the drug was inefficacious and dangerous, as I recall (must read it again, just to be sure). And then the Company applied for licences, anyway. Sure looks like fraud to me. But, then, I'm not a public prosecutor.<BR/><BR/>MattRadagasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14286529284742690239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10459981.post-78723906692742004142008-03-06T16:43:00.000+00:002008-03-06T16:43:00.000+00:00I wonder if the wording of Kent's statement was ag...I wonder if the wording of Kent's statement was agreed with GSK, first? It's hardly lacerating, is it: "I remain concerned"?<BR/><BR/>Fuck you, you shoddy bastards.<BR/><BR/>MattRadagasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14286529284742690239noreply@blogger.com