US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Revolving Door

Covington - DOJ - Covington

I'm not really into American politics, not really into British politics either, I'd sooner read knitting patterns as politics, in general, bores me rigid.

That's not to say that every now and again something pops up that is of interest. None more so than the recent news surrounding US Attorney General, Eric Holder.

Holder was part of the legal team for the Department of Justice (DOJ) - the same team that fined GlaxoSmithKline a staggering $3 billion for promoting its best-selling antidepressants (Paxil and Wellbutrin) for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about its top diabetes drug, Avandia.

Bizarrely, Holder had previously worked for the law firm, Covington, who specialize in representing (defending) pharmaceutical companies in litigation.

It was quite a turnaround. One minute Holder is defending pharmaceutical companies, the next, he's prosecuting them.

Strange then that, after just 6 years with the DOJ, he should return to Covington as a partner.

So, what input, if any at all, did Holder have regarding the negotiations of the $3 billion settlement figure, and, more importantly, could the original figure, said to be a lot more than $3 billion, have been whittled down by Holder? Furthermore, who was exactly behind the Wellbutrin promotion, was it, as some sources suggest, the current CEO of Glaxo, Andrew Witty, who, at the time of the illegal promotion, was Vice President General Manager of Marketing for Glaxo?

I'm just throwing the question out there because this revolving door between Covington and the DOJ seems, to me at least, to be bordering on being incestuous.

News of Holder's double u-turn came via Melayna Lokosky who has wrote a quite brilliant blog post where she raises many questions regarding Holder's latest "unethical move."

Her blog can be read, in full, here.

Lokosky also tweets about it via her Twitter account, here.


One to keep an eye on.


Bob Fiddaman.

Glaxo's Murky Transparency Claim

Glaxo head, Andrew Witty, is in the news - this time he's bigging-up his company for being transparent.

Many of the mainstream press are carrying the story, "All Hail Sir Andrew". Critics are viewing this by asking their own questions, one such critic being Mickey Nardo, who, by his own admission, is one boring old man with time on his hands.

Mickey, a retired psychiatrist, raises some good points in a post here, he writes:

I don’t want to join the voices that find something wrong not matter what changes are made. So long as pharmaceutical manufacturers remain private business enterprises, we can expect the to act like other businesses in a capitalistic society. But at a time like this when GSK is making a change in policy towards something that needs fixing as badly as this does, I think it behooves us to go over it with a fine tooth comb to make sure it conforms to the needed change rather than represents another attempt at deceit. With GSK, we’ve earned the right to use that word [deceit] freely. I’ve already mentioned the issue of "panel of experts" as a potential conduit for deceit. But there’s something else.