Goodnight Channel 5

Channel Five's final say on the product placement matter, or rather my final correspondence with them.

I see no point in banging my head against a brick wall, I did it for years with the British drug regulator and don't intend to go down that road again.

In a nutshell, Channel 5 bosses see no problem with advertising...or rather placing GSK's products on popular TV shows. They see no problem, it seems, with Glaxo's admittance of guilt for various fraudulent activities nor do they see any future UK litigation pending against GSK as a problem regarding placing GSK brands in popular TV shows that they broadcast.

The two previous emails sent to me can be seen here and here.

Here's their third. My reply is below theirs. I won't be pursuing this matter any further. Channel 5 have made their position clear.

Date:  3rd July 2015


Dear Bob

Thank you for your latest e-mail.

When the products referred to were featured in the Big Brother house, no statements were made regarding them or their benefits. Channel 5 is satisfied that a product placement deal involving those products could not be interpreted as being misleading in any way. You will understand that the ASA ruling was in relation to an advertisement and not the product itself.  

Like all product placement deals, this one was fully compliant with relevant broadcasting legislation and the law.

Channel 5 will continue to make commercial arrangements with whatever corporate entities it chooses. Litigation concerning such corporate entities does not necessarily affect the appropriateness of commercial arrangements.

Yours sincerely


Ian
VIEWER ADVISOR



--

My reply.


Dear Ian,

Thank you for confirming Channel Five's position on this.

I won't be in touch again.

Sincerely


Bob Fiddaman.


---



Bob Fiddaman.

Channel 5 Respond for Second Time Regarding GSK Deal.

For those who have been following, Channel 5 have replied for a second time regarding their collaboration with British pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline.

Basically, in 2013, Channel 5 agreed to place the GlaxoSmithKline brand, Maxi-Nutrition, in the Big Brother house. It is unknown how much GlaxoSmithKline paid Channel 5 for this.

I wrote to Channel 5 and pointed out Glaxo's recent admittance of guilt in the United States, whereby they admitted to making false and misleading claims about a number of their products.

Initially, Channel 5 seemed unconcerned. See emails here.

Channel 5 have now replied for a second time and, as a matter of public interest, I have wrote back to them for a third time.

Here is their reply, followed by mine.

Dear Bob

Thank you for your further e-mails.

The comment to which you make mention was merely intended to make it clear that Channel 5 would not accept advertising or sponsorship for a product about which false or misleading claims were made and was not referring to the past activities of GlaxoSmithKline. Whatever the conduct of the company in the USA in relation to different products, Channel 5 is unaware of any reason which would cause Aquafresh or Maxi-Nutrition products to be undesirable products to be associated with Big Brother.

Channel 5 is a private company and as such is not obliged to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOI) requests. For further details on the FOI and the organisations to which it applies please visit the following UK Government website:

www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4003239

Although Viacom is Channel 5’s parent company, we do not divulge contact details for individuals within this company. We would suggest visiting the official Viacom website at www.vimn.com in order to find contact details for personnel at this company.

Thank you for your interest in Channel 5.

Yours sincerely 

Ian

VIEWER ADVISOR

My reply to the above...



Dear Ian,

Thank you for clarifying matters.

It appears that Channel 5 took into account GlaxoSmithKline's guilty plea of false and misleading claims (fraud) and still accepted their advertising/sponsorship. It also appears, if my judgement is correct, that Channel 5 also took into account the current UK litigation against GlaxoSmithKline, litigation that has been on-going for almost 10 years. Once again, Channel 5 decided to go ahead with accepting GlaxoSmithKline's advertising/sponsorship.

It seems quite remarkable that in 2013, despite the above knowledge, Channel 5 agreed to enter into this deal with GlaxoSmithKline, particularly when, one year later, in 2014, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned an ad for GlaxoSmithKline's MaxiNutrition brand for exaggerating its health benefits. The ASA ruled that because not all of the MaxiNutrition products contained protein, the ad could be misleading to viewers. - Source.

Although this happened approx one year after Channel 5 struck a deal with GlaxoSmithKline, it highlights that the brand featured in the Big Brother House, to millions of viewers, was a brand that was actually misleading Big Brother viewers.

Do Channel 5 have any plans to inform Big Brother viewers of this and/or do Channel 5 have any future plans to work with GlaxoSmithKline again?

Sincerely,

Bob Fiddaman

Author, researcher.

--


Once again, if Channel 5 reply I will, as a matter of public interest, strive to publish what they send me.

As a side note here, Channel 5 and Viacom, even GlaxoSmithKline, may think that I am acting rather churlish chasing this. Truth of the matter is, I don't really care what they think. Personally, I believe GlaxoSmithKline have got away with far too much over the years, often seen making settlements to mothers who have had to abort fetuses because Paxil harmed their child. Or, in other instances, making settlements to mothers who have endured childbirth only to learn that their child has been born with heart defects or skull defects caused by Paxil. I don't like the way their attorneys turned up **mob-handed at Sara Carlin's inquest either, nor the defence they used regarding her suicide. I don't like the way they claim that people taking their antidepressant do not suffer addiction when it's quite clear that Paxil has caused many thousands to suffer addiction. I'm not particularly fond of their attorneys either - yes, I do understand that everyone is entitled to a defence - problem I have is the individual attorneys who know their client has, in the past, hid important suicide information and withdrawal information from the public. In my eyes, they are just as guilty as GlaxoSmithKline.

To be honest, I'm pissed off with companies such as Channel 5 and Viacom and famous people, many of which the public look up to, Jenson Button (McLaren) and  Dame Kelly Holmes, for example, attaching themselves to GlaxoSmithKline without, it seems, caring about Glaxo's past. I'm gobsmacked at the Queen for handing Glaxo's boss a knighthood for 'services rendered to the pharmaceutical industry' - we are talking about the same man who has refused to discuss the Seroxat addiction issue with many patients who, still, struggle to get off the drug his company make. What is it with these people who feel no shame in working alongside or endorsing this pharmaceutical company? Instead of being associated with them they should come out and start asking questions about this company - asking them why they hid the Paxil suicide link in children would be a start. Maybe the likes of Button  and Holmes could then ask Glaxo why they paid leading psychiatrists wads of cash to promote the use of Paxil in children when they knew there was an increased risk of suicide if children took this drug. Or is this just about money?

It's high time companies such as Channel 5 and Viacom were put into the spotlight and asked why they would associate themselves with criminals, yup, it's safe to say that GSK are criminals thanks to the plea of guilty by them in the whistleblower lawsuit which saw them fork out a massive $3 billion in fines. No jail time just a handful of cash from the huge profits made on the very same drugs that they were found guilty, or rather pleaded guilty, to selling whilst misleading the public with false and misleading claims. Not even Hollywood writers and directors could come up with something so perverse and unbelievable!

Many advertising deals are, I assume, struck with GSK. Dinners, gifts and lots of backslapping - nothing ever changes. It, as always, is left to the man/woman on the street to fight their own corners because, it appears, the privileged and the rich just want to continue being more privileged and even richer.

It's kind of sickening and really does leave a bitter taste in my mouth but hey, I'm just the man on the street so who really cares if I feel sickened or not?

I could go on and on...



Bob Fiddaman

Coming Soon.

Seroxat - Emails From The Edge. The second BBC Panorama documentary regarding Seroxat/Paxil addiction.

It's a documentary that, for one reason or another, hasn't really been uploaded anywhere for people who missed it when it was first broadcast in 2003. The first, 'The Secrets of Seroxat' (2002) can be seen here.


**mob-handed (just in case Glaxo's attorney's don't know the definition) - (informal) in or with a large group of people.

GSK's Product Placement - Channel 5 Respond!

Last week I wrote about how I had learned that, in 2013, GlaxoSmithKline and bosses at Channel 5, a UK terrestrial TV channel, had struck a deal to have GSK's product, Maximuscle, placed into the popular TV show Big Brother (Back story)

Here's the email I wrote...

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'd be grateful if you could pass this along to the relevant department at CH 5.

It recently came to my attention that GlaxoSmithKline's product, Maximuscle, was used as a  product placement deal for a Celebrity Big Brother task in 2013.

Whilst I understand, to a small degree, business and advertising revenue, I cannot understand why Channel 5 would agree to placing a product marketed and manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline given that the British pharmaceutical giant, one year previous to collaboration with Ch 5, were fined a record $3 billion in a fraud settlement in the United States.

The criminal charges involved the illegal marketing of the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and the withholding of data on the health risks of the diabetes medication Avandia.

Paxil (Known as Seroxat in the UK)

Although the antidepressant Paxil is not approved for patients under 18, Glaxo illegally marketed the drug for use in children and teens, offering kickbacks to doctors and sales representatives to push the drug. Many children and teens who took the drug went on to self harm and/or carry out acts of violence on other and/or kill themselves.

Wellbutrin

Glaxo used the help of PR firms and the appeal of lavish vacations to convince medical professionals to prescribe the antidepressant Wellbutrin for weight loss, sexual dysfunction, drug addiction and ADHD, even though the drug is FDA approved only to treat depression. 

Avandia

For seven years, Glaxo failed to report data to the FDA showing that its blockbuster diabetes drug, Avandia, approved in 1999, increased heart risks in patients.

In 2007, the drug was banned in Europe. The European Medicines Agency concluded that the heart risks of Avandia did not justify its blood sugar benefits.

I'd be grateful if a representative of CH 5 could explain why they endorsed a GlaxoSmithKline product on one of its most popular TV programmes given that they (GSK) had one year previously plead guilty and paid $3 billion to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety data.

I look forward to you reply.

Sincerely,
-- 

I also sent a copy to Viacom, the owners of Channel 5.


Earlier today I received a response. It's priceless.

Date:  25th June 2015

Dear Bob

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding Celebrity Big Brother. 

We were sorry to read your concerns regarding a GlaxoSmithKine product being featured in the 2013 series of this programme. Irrespective of any past legal action involving this company in the United States, they are a legitimate company and although some people may have concerns about their business practices, we do not believe that this should preclude them from placing products in a television programme in accordance with the relevant guidelines.

As a commercial television channel we fund our programming and engineering costs through advertisements and programme sponsorship opportunities. However, this does not mean that we will accept advertising or sponsorship from companies or products making misleading or false claims.

Nevertheless, we do appreciate your concerns and we would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us. Your comments on this issue have been logged in our Viewer Enquiries Report for the attention of all relevant personnel.

Thank you for your interest in Channel 5. 

Yours sincerely

Ian
VIEWER ADVISOR

---


I've wrote back the following. You will note where I have highlighted what Channel 5 appear to have missed when doing their homework on the British multi-million pharmaceutical company.

Thank you for your reply.

However, I am somewhat baffled by the line, "this does not mean that we will accept advertising or sponsorship from companies or products making misleading or false claims."

Did you read the Department of Justice Department's verdict?

Here's what GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to.

• GSK agreed to plead guilty to misbranding Paxil in that its labeling was false and misleading regarding the use of Paxil for patients under 18.

Civil Settlement Agreement

As part of this global resolution, GSK has agreed to resolve its civil liability for the following alleged conduct: (1) promoting the drugs Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal and Zofran for off-label, non-covered uses and paying kickbacks to physicians to prescribe those drugs as well as the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex; (2) making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of Avandia; and (3) reporting false best prices and underpaying rebates owed under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.

Off-Label Promotion and Kickbacks: The civil settlement resolves claims set forth in a complaint filed by the United States alleging that, in addition to promoting the drugs Paxil and Wellbutrin for unapproved, non-covered uses, GSK also promoted its asthma drug, Advair, for first-line therapy for mild asthma patients even though it was not approved or medically appropriate under these circumstances. GSK also promoted Advair for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with misleading claims as to the relevant treatment guidelines. The civil settlement also resolves allegations that GSK promoted Lamictal, an anti-epileptic medication, for off-label, non-covered psychiatric uses, neuropathic pain and pain management. It further resolves allegations that GSK promoted certain forms of Zofran, approved only for post-operative nausea, for the treatment of morning sickness in pregnant women. It also includes allegations that GSK paid kickbacks to health care professionals to induce them to promote and prescribe these drugs as well as the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex. The United States alleges that this conduct caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs.

GSK has agreed to pay $1.043 billion relating to false claims arising from this alleged conduct. The federal share of this settlement is $832 million and the state share is $210 million.

This off-label civil settlement resolves four lawsuits pending in federal court in the District of Massachusetts under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act, which allow private citizens to bring civil actions on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery.

Avandia: In its civil settlement agreement, the United States alleges that GSK promoted Avandia to physicians and other health care providers with false and misleadingrepresentations about Avandia’s safety profile, causing false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs. Specifically, the United States alleges that GSK stated that Avandia had a positive cholesterol profile despite having no well-controlled studies to support that message. The United States also alleges that the company sponsored programs suggesting cardiovascular benefits from Avandia therapy despite warnings on the FDA-approved label regarding cardiovascular risks. GSK has agreed to pay $657 million relating to false claims arising from misrepresentations about Avandia. The federal share of this settlement is $508 million and the state share is $149 million.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report

Not to mention the fact that GSK are also the subject of UK litigation regarding the antidepressant Seroxat. How do you think the plaintiffs in the case against them feel when they see GSK products advertised on your programme? 

Is it possible to make a request under the terms of the FOIA to Viacom or Channel 5? The answer you gave me, to be honest, is quite shocking and someone at Viacom or Channel 5 obviously did not do their homework on GlaxoSmithKline.

Sincerely

Bob Fiddaman.

For me, the above correspondence is of public interest, hence the publication of it on this blog.

I will endeavor to keep readers updated should Channel 5, or indeed Viacom, wish to further answer my query.

Bob Fiddaman.

Big Brother, GSK and Product Placement.

Stumbling on stories usually, for me at least, kicks off a series of events. None more so than the story I stumbled across today.

In 2013 GlaxoSmithKline's Maximuscle protein shakes and Maximuscle-branded gym equipment featured in a fitness task in the 'Celebrity Big Brother' house.

The product placement deal placed Maximuscle protein shakes, Maximuscle-branded gym equipment and accessories and bathroom products in the house. The housemates also wore branded sweat suits.

The partnership was negotiated for GSK by MediaCom with Channel 5's partnerships team and Endemol, the 'Big Brother' creator and production company. (Source)

It's important to look at the timing of this deal. 2013.

With this in mind I have wrote to Channel 5. If they respond I will publish on this blog.

Here's the email.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'd be grateful if you could pass this along to the relevant department at CH 5.

It recently came to my attention that GlaxoSmithKline's product, Maximuscle, was used as a  product placement deal for a Celebrity Big Brother task in 2013.

Whilst I understand, to a small degree, business and advertising revenue, I cannot understand why Channel 5 would agree to placing a product marketed and manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline given that the British pharmaceutical giant, one year previous to collaboration with Ch 5, were fined a record $3 billion in a fraud settlement in the United States.

The criminal charges involved the illegal marketing of the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and the withholding of data on the health risks of the diabetes medication Avandia.

Paxil (Known as Seroxat in the UK)

Although the antidepressant Paxil is not approved for patients under 18, Glaxo illegally marketed the drug for use in children and teens, offering kickbacks to doctors and sales representatives to push the drug. Many children and teens who took the drug went on to self harm and/or carry out acts of violence on other and/or kill themselves.

Wellbutrin

Glaxo used the help of PR firms and the appeal of lavish vacations to convince medical professionals to prescribe the antidepressant Wellbutrin for weight loss, sexual dysfunction, drug addiction and ADHD, even though the drug is FDA approved only to treat depression. 

Avandia

For seven years, Glaxo failed to report data to the FDA showing that its blockbuster diabetes drug, Avandia, approved in 1999, increased heart risks in patients.

In 2007, the drug was banned in Europe. The European Medicines Agency concluded that the heart risks of Avandia did not justify its blood sugar benefits.

I'd be grateful if a representative of CH 5 could explain why they endorsed a GlaxoSmithKline product on one of its most popular TV programmes given that they (GSK) had one year previously plead guilty and paid $3 billion to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety data.

I look forward to you reply.

Sincerely,
-- 

This should prove interesting if, indeed, they respond.


Bob Fiddaman.