It's laughable that the public won't be allowed to find out who the 'suspects' were. Is this further embarrassment upon the MHRA or are they breathing a sigh of relief?
I buy into the fact that the MHRA are totally pissed off in the way GSK have totally embarrassed them but at the same time I have little sympathy for them. Why should I?
There has been no public announcement that GSK have responded to Woods - the pdf file is tucked away on the MHRA website. Why?
Is it just left to the patient advocates again to bring this to the attention of the public?
Why wasn't there a press release from the MHRA?
If I had been made to look a complete incompetent fool I would certainly want to get my point across. Instead we have a letter to Garnier 'You naughty boy, go and stand in the corner then explain your reasons why you did what you did'
Garnier sulks then gets someone else to write his explanation. No admission of any wrong doing - in fact the letter from Krall does everything but admit fault.
The 4 year investigation found that GSK were morally wrong to do what they did. Morals don't account for much with Pharma. GSK could not be prosecuted due to some perverse EU law - a law, that it seems, they used to their benefit. A law that protected them to do what they did.
The MHRA criminal investigation... because at the end of the day it WAS a criminal one, needs to be seriously looked at by impartial investigators - at this moment in time patient advocates, bloggers et al seem to be those impartial investigators. We continue to make noises that make those in power feel uncomfortable.
The funding the MHRA receive from pharma is basically to finance the drugs they review. But the data they review would pass any rigorous review because it is data that pharma want the MHRA to see. It's akin to an advertisement for a book. You've seen the blurbs on the posters... normally followed by a quote from a national newspaper - 'HIS BEST NOVEL TO DATE' etc. The book publisher won't add the comment from a book critic that said 'I FOUND THE BOOK WEAK AND BORING'
Why?
Because they want the book to make money... and lots of it.
This is how medicines are regulated - The MHRA are basically going on 'HIS BEST NOVEL TO DATE' because they are unaware of 'I FOUND THE BOOK WEAK AND BORING'
It's the best analogy I can offer. Once that 'book' hits the shelves critics (in this case patient advocates) will make their own minds up - it's a personal experience thing. Their word will reach far and wide and eventually book sales will slump.
Meantime the book publisher and/or marketing team are left with egg on their face but hey they made a mint out of it before those pesky critics got in the way.
I digress.
The criminal investigation into GlaxoSmithKline was mis-managed. Suspects should have been arrested regardless of whether or not the MHRA enforcement team thought they would talk.
We can see now by Kralls letter why they wasn't arrested.
Mud sticks and if arrests were made then it would have become public knowledge. The fact that they were only suspects gives them the protection of anonymity, GSK's lawyers would have already foreseen this so why didn't the enforcement team and the MHRA lawyers? Maybe they did and felt the need to protect.
There has to be a reason why the suspects were not arrested. The whole 'they would have remained silent' just does not wash with me. Like any criminal investigation team be it internal or external there has to be an interrogation at some point, I'm not talking about beating a suspect with wet towels until they confess. An interrogation of any suspect advances a criminal investigation or at least eliminates suspicion.
The MHRA took it on good faith that the Seroxat data was kosher. The MHRA enforcement team took it on good faith that the suspects would remain silent if questioned under caution. On both occasions they handled GSK with kid gloves - on both occasions they have been made to look incompetent.
Fid
I buy into the fact that the MHRA are totally pissed off in the way GSK have totally embarrassed them but at the same time I have little sympathy for them. Why should I?
There has been no public announcement that GSK have responded to Woods - the pdf file is tucked away on the MHRA website. Why?
Is it just left to the patient advocates again to bring this to the attention of the public?
Why wasn't there a press release from the MHRA?
If I had been made to look a complete incompetent fool I would certainly want to get my point across. Instead we have a letter to Garnier 'You naughty boy, go and stand in the corner then explain your reasons why you did what you did'
Garnier sulks then gets someone else to write his explanation. No admission of any wrong doing - in fact the letter from Krall does everything but admit fault.
The 4 year investigation found that GSK were morally wrong to do what they did. Morals don't account for much with Pharma. GSK could not be prosecuted due to some perverse EU law - a law, that it seems, they used to their benefit. A law that protected them to do what they did.
The MHRA criminal investigation... because at the end of the day it WAS a criminal one, needs to be seriously looked at by impartial investigators - at this moment in time patient advocates, bloggers et al seem to be those impartial investigators. We continue to make noises that make those in power feel uncomfortable.
The funding the MHRA receive from pharma is basically to finance the drugs they review. But the data they review would pass any rigorous review because it is data that pharma want the MHRA to see. It's akin to an advertisement for a book. You've seen the blurbs on the posters... normally followed by a quote from a national newspaper - 'HIS BEST NOVEL TO DATE' etc. The book publisher won't add the comment from a book critic that said 'I FOUND THE BOOK WEAK AND BORING'
Why?
Because they want the book to make money... and lots of it.
This is how medicines are regulated - The MHRA are basically going on 'HIS BEST NOVEL TO DATE' because they are unaware of 'I FOUND THE BOOK WEAK AND BORING'
It's the best analogy I can offer. Once that 'book' hits the shelves critics (in this case patient advocates) will make their own minds up - it's a personal experience thing. Their word will reach far and wide and eventually book sales will slump.
Meantime the book publisher and/or marketing team are left with egg on their face but hey they made a mint out of it before those pesky critics got in the way.
I digress.
The criminal investigation into GlaxoSmithKline was mis-managed. Suspects should have been arrested regardless of whether or not the MHRA enforcement team thought they would talk.
We can see now by Kralls letter why they wasn't arrested.
Mud sticks and if arrests were made then it would have become public knowledge. The fact that they were only suspects gives them the protection of anonymity, GSK's lawyers would have already foreseen this so why didn't the enforcement team and the MHRA lawyers? Maybe they did and felt the need to protect.
There has to be a reason why the suspects were not arrested. The whole 'they would have remained silent' just does not wash with me. Like any criminal investigation team be it internal or external there has to be an interrogation at some point, I'm not talking about beating a suspect with wet towels until they confess. An interrogation of any suspect advances a criminal investigation or at least eliminates suspicion.
The MHRA took it on good faith that the Seroxat data was kosher. The MHRA enforcement team took it on good faith that the suspects would remain silent if questioned under caution. On both occasions they handled GSK with kid gloves - on both occasions they have been made to look incompetent.
Fid
Read the new book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal
By Bob Fiddaman
ISBN: 978-1-84991-120-7
CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD HERE
PAPERBACK COMING SOON
2 comments: