Comic Relief and GSK Form Five-Year Partnership

It's one of those headlines that one would think is parody. You read it right folks, "Comic Relief and GSK Form Five-Year Partnership."

Comic Relief is, in essence, a charity founded in 1985 to try and tackle the famine in Ethiopia. It takes up much of the BBC broadcasting slots under the guise of Red Nose Day, beginning in the afternoon on CBBC, a channel aimed at children, and usually runs throughout the night and early hours of the morning. It's a pastiche of comedy clips featuring world renowned comedians from all over the globe. Their mission - to "bring about positive and lasting change in the lives of poor and disadvantaged people, which we believe requires investing in work that addresses people's immediate needs as well as tackling the root causes of poverty and injustice."

Earlier this year I reported on another children's charity, namely, "Save The Children". I wrote a number of emails to them as I was concerned that a charity, whose main focus was children, had entered into a partnership with a company who had knowingly put children at risk by covering up the suicide link caused by one of their products, Paxil. The series of emails, including responses from Save The Children, can be read here. In short, they told me that they were well aware of Glaxo's history but decided to press ahead with the partnership because, "these risks are outweighed by the benefits of the partnership in helping us achieve our ambitions for children."

GSK are no strangers to Comic Relief. In 2002 they donated $200,000 (Australian) to Comic Relief and announced a fund-raising program in which its drug sales people would visit doctors dressed as clowns. At the time, many accused Glaxo's fund-raising program as having some similarities to its advertising for one of Australia's top-selling anti-depressant drugs. That drug is called Aropax, better known as Seroxat in the UK and Paxil in the US and Canada. (Back story)

Your normal every-day average Brit would take their hats off to Glaxo, particularly with the announcement that they are going to inject £17 million, alongside Comic Relief's £5 million into a fund that will help fight malaria and "improve health" in five malaria endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. (See official GSK press release)

It's obvious that GSK will no longer promote Seroxat via smokescreens but the irony is that since 2002 GSK have paid out compensation to victims of Seroxat, including over 3,000 people who became addicted to Seroxat, over 800 women whose children were born with serious heart defects because of Seroxat, and also being found guilty of Seroxat causing, in part, the death of Donald Schell and his family members.

On the surface GSK's £17 million donation and 5 year partnership with Comic Relief seems generous, however, it should, I believe, carry a cautionary disclaimer.

Here's the reason why - Alastair Benbow: The Devil is in the Details

Nothing more needs to be said.


Bob Fiddaman.

Save The Children Respond Re Partnership with GSK

Those keeping an eye on the correspondence between myself and global charity, 'Save The Children', will know that I recently fired off an email to them regarding their partnership with GlaxoSmithKline - The email can be read here.

Save The Children have now responded in full and I have wrote back to them with my thoughts about their reply. First, here's their response...

Dear Bob,

Many thanks for getting in touch with Save the Children about our partnership with GlaxoSmithKline. I believe you have contacted us before on this, and we thank you for your interest.

Save the Children is aware of the reports on the historical issue of Paxil. As an organisation we take our reputation and our role to protect children very seriously and assess all our partnerships within this context.  We acknowledge there are risks associated in working with a pharmaceutical company such as GSK, but our belief is that these risks are outweighed by the benefits of the partnership in helping us achieve our ambitions for children.

As part of our partnership we continue to have open dialogue with GSK and monitor their business practices, in order that we respond appropriately should future issues arise.

Private sector partnerships are instrumental in enabling Save the Children to realise our vision and our partnership with GSK will have a lasting impact on global mortality rates. The focus of the partnership is to help to save a million children’s lives in the developing world and it combines GSK’s relevant skills, expertise and resources across its business with the funding of healthcare programmes for the poorest children in developing worlds.

For further information on our partnership, please visit: www.savethechildren.org.uk/about-us/who-we-work-with/corporate-partnerships/our-partners/gsk

Kind regards,

-- 

My reply...

Dear REDACTED,

Many thanks for your reply.

I DO admire the work of Save The Children and would, if it were not for your partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, promote your worthy cause.

However, I have a problem given Glaxo's appalling record when it comes to the safety of children.

You claim that the benefits of being in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline outweigh the risks - and that helps you achieve your ambitions for children.

I get it - I totally get it.

In the same context, however, you are more or less saying that Glaxo putting between 8,000 - 266,000 children and adolescents at risk of suicide (in just one year) is something that Save The Children can overlook because your partnership, or goals, can potentially reach an audience where more children could be saved. Is this your position?

I am sure your organisation has mathematicians or even accountants who can crunch the numbers - see here - http://fiddaman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/alastair-benbow-devil-is-in-details.html

Furthermore, despite Glaxo pleading guilty and paying a fine of $3 billion to resolve fraud allegations you still believe that your association with them is beneficial?

This, as you know, was a criminal offence and saw Glaxo plead guilty to, amongst other things..

Paxil: In the criminal information, the government alleges that, from April 1998 to August 2003, GSK unlawfully promoted Paxil for treating depression in patients under age 18, even though the FDA has never approved it for pediatric use. The United States alleges that, among other things, GSK participated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article that misreported that a clinical trial of Paxil demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of depression in patients under age 18, when the study failed to demonstrate efficacy. At the same time, the United States alleges, GSK did not make available data from two other studies in which Paxil also failed to demonstrate efficacy in treating depression in patients under 18. The United States further alleges that GSK sponsored dinner programs, lunch programs, spa programs and similar activities to promote the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. GSK paid a speaker to talk to an audience of doctors and paid for the meal or spa treatment for the doctors who attended. Since 2004, Paxil, like other antidepressants, included on its label a “black box warning” stating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in short-term studies in patients under age 18. 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.

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

Once again, I refer you to http://fiddaman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/alastair-benbow-devil-is-in-details.html that breaks down the number of children and adolescents GlaxoSmithKline, through their criminal behaviour, put at risk of suicide.

Are you telling me that this sits right with Save The Children?

Without sounding flippant, are you merely telling me that Save The Children are willing to enter into partnership with anyone with a criminal record such as the one GSK pleaded guilty to?

GlaxoSmithKline made a lot of money by illegally promoting Paxil to this age group and now, it appears, are helping Save The Children with their illegal gains.

This sits rights with Save The Children and your stakeholders?

As I have stipulated, I admire, greatly, the work that Save The Children do but dismissing GlaxoSmithKline's criminal record where children and adolescents are concerned seems a tad perverse given the title of your organisation.

In essence, and from the gist of your reply, you are, I assume, saying that it's okay to put children and adolescents at risk of suicide as long as you are able to offer money to the Save The Children organisation?

Would you enter into a partnership with a multi-millionaire who kidnapped, let's say, 8,000 teenagers and threw a rope around their necks and threatened to hang them?

With respect, your response clearly suggests that Save The Children are willing to enter into a partnership despite any person/s criminal background. Remember, it took a Department of Justice investigation to force Glaxo's hand - they had previously denied any wrong-doing.

To be honest, I am flabbergasted at Save The Children's reasoning here.

Regards

-- 

I'll let you know should Save The Children respond.



Bob Fiddaman.

Save The Children

Some people ask me why I'm, seemingly, hellbent on causing GlaxoSmithKline grief. I would have thought it was plainly obvious given their sombre history where kids are concerned.

The recent RIAT findings that showed (clearly) how this British pharmaceutical company hid important patient information in an effort to make money should have embarrassed GlaxoSmithKline bosses, it should have embarrassed every single person that works for GlaxoSmithKline (past and present) - more importantly this new information should have made your average person angry - sadly, there are still people who read the headlines, shrug their shoulders, and continue posting photos of their dinner on Facebook or a photo or video of a cute cat or dog. The marketing of Paxil to kids doesn't seem to bother them because... well, because it happened to other children and adolescents and not theirs. This attitude is akin to people turning their cheeks when Hitler went on his journey - "Ah well, it won't affect us, we ain't Jewish, it's not our problem."

I have a beef with apathetic attitudes, moreover I have a beef with the people with these attitudes.

I understand that everyone of us have our own agendas, I just can't fathom out what some people's agendas are?

Then there are the organizations who receive funding from GlaxoSmithKline, of which there are many.

In a perverse twist of fate we have the aptly named 'Save The Children' charity who proudly boast...

"Save the Children works in 120 countries. We save children’s lives. We fight for their rights. We help them fulfil their potential."

I have to take my hat off to any charity that puts children first and I salute Save The Children for all that they do regarding the protection of children.

Here's what I don't get...

In 2013, GSK and Save the Children formed an ambitious and strategic global partnership. At the time of joining forces, GSK CEO, Andrew Witty, had this to say...

“A partnership of this scale gives us an opportunity to do something amazing – to save the lives of one million children, and to transform the lives of millions more. At GSK we are motivated by developing innovative life-saving medicines and getting them to the people that need them.

“By joining forces with Save the Children, we can amplify these efforts to create a new momentum for change and stop children dying from preventable diseases. I hope this partnership inspires GSK employees and sets a new standard for how companies and NGOs can work together towards a shared goal.”

GlaxoSmithKline, along with the 22 original authors of the JAACAP paper, potentially put thousands of children and adolescents at risk of suicide (potential figures here)

Would it have made us all be more vocal if the risk would have been death by poisoning? Is the suicide thing debatable because the majority of us think that kids who kill themselves are mentally ill and it has nothing to do with medication inducing suicide?

How can a charity, who aim to save children's lives team up with a pharmaceutical company who did/do exactly the opposite?

With this in mind, I wrote the following to Save The Children (I have also wrote to a number of other children's charities who are affiliated with Glaxo.)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Whom may I speak with regarding your affiliation with British pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline?

As you will probably know by now, a new study that was recently published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has shown that GlaxoSmithKline knowingly withheld vital patient information back from regulators and the public regarding it's best selling antidepressant Seroxat, known by the brand name of Paxil in the United States. The new findings have urged the associate editor of The BMJ to write a scathing feature on GlaxoSmithKline - this is unheard of in medical journals.

The clinical trial, known as Study 329, originally showed that adolescents/children, across the world, were at no harm in taking Seroxat, when in actual fact, there were 12 adolescents in the original study who suffered suicidal feelings whilst on Glaxo's drug.

Glaxo never informed the people they should have and, for the past 14 years, academics have been calling for the retraction of this fraudulent study. GlaxoSmithKline, despite new evidence showing how they hid the data, have declined to remove the study, a study that is still used by healthcare professionals when deciding whether or not to prescribe children Seroxat off-label.

It makes a mockery of your affiliation with them. On one hand you are running an organisation that is trying to help save children, on the other hand you are affiliating yourselves with a company who put children at risk, and continue to do so.

The new study and the background can be found here - http://study329.org/

I strongly urge you to inform yourselves and reassess your allegiance with GlaxoSmithKline.

If this is just about receiving funding from GlaxoSmithKline to help your cause then you may wish to find out exactly how much money they have made over the years regarding the sale of paroxetine (generic name) to children and adolescents.

I don't expect for one minute that you will respond to this email but as a matter of conscience I urge you to, at the very least, read the new study and the history of this whole sordid affair that has put children and adolescents at high risk of suicidal thoughts and, in some cases, completed suicide.

Regards

Bob Fiddaman

--

Those of you on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the other countless social media websites who wish to carry on burying your heads in the sand and ignoring what Glaxo have done here, that's fine - just leave it to the people who have been affected by pharmaceutical greed. Glaxo aren't the only company who have caused heartache for parents, husbands, wives, brother, sisters and friends of those who have died as a result of unsafe antidepressants (short video below with just a handful of instances) - Hey, they are other people's loved ones so it really doesn't matter - just continue with your fluffy bunny, dog and cat pictures on Facebook.

I often wonder if I am wrong to do what I do and if I should just, like the millions of others on Facebook, just bury my head in the sand and use my status profile to tell people that I have just ordered a chicken madras or egg foo yung for my tea... then proceed to post a photo of it on to my wall when it arrives.

Such apathetic attitudes of the general public make it easier for the likes of GlaxoSmithKline and the charities that align themselves with them.

We ALL have a part to play in protecting children, whatever our life agendas, whether or not those children are our own.

The irony of it all is that this rant of mine will be 'liked' on Facebook, people on my friend list (not all of them) will see it appear on my wall and they will instantly 'like' it without actually clicking on the link to read it - hey, it must be likable because that Fiddaman guy is having a pop at GSK again.

I created this blog almost 10 years ago - I wanted to get to the bottom of the whole Seroxat/Paxil debacle because I had taken it and suffered the horrific withdrawal effects from it. When I learned that this antidepressant, and other SSRIs were actually causing kids to kill themselves (adults too) I changed direction - this wasn't just about me, it was about others less fortunate than me. I suffered horrendous side effects but I lived to tell the tale, others were less fortunate than I.

This is for them, it's also for the Facebook Fluffy Bunny Brigade. 

Enjoy your chicken madras.


**Update - Save The Children Respond** - Here

Bob Fiddaman.

Save the Children Respond Re GSK

Following on from my previous post 'Save the Children and GSK'

In my previous post I wrote about how I had wrote Save the Children and asked them the following regarding their partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.

As I am sure you are aware GSK recently pleaded guilty and were fined over $3 billion in the US for promoting drugs to children off-label. One of these drugs, Paxil, which goes by the brand name of Seroxat here in the UK, causes suicidal thinking in children. At the time of the off-label promotion GSK knew of this particular side effect but failed to inform medicine regulators and healthcare professionals. A result of which has saw children and teenagers go on to complete suicide.

My question to Save the Children is one of ethics.

Knowing that GSK promoted a drug that could harm children (and they (GSK) knew of the potential risk but failed to warn), do you (Save the Children) believe that a partnership with GSK is morally correct?

If you believe it is, please state your reasons.

Here is their response.

It's the first time I have ever seen an organisation, outside of the pharmaceutical industry, use the words 'benefit' and 'risk'.

I'm speechless.

We are aware of the reports on the historic issues relating to Paxil. As an organisation we take our role to protect children very seriously and assess all our partnerships and collaborations very much within this context. Save the Children works to ensure that decisions around who we partner with are made with the best interests of children at the core – and this means deciding whether the impact on children we can have through our programming and advocacy funded by a donor or partner outweighs any potential risks.

We consider carefully the risks associated with partnering with pharmaceutical companies and in the case of GSK our belief is that the risks are outweighed by the benefits of this partnership, in helping us achieve our ambitions for children. The focus of the GSK-Save the Children partnership is to help save a million children’s lives in the developing world.

Make of that what you will.

Save The Children can be emailed here.

Bob Fiddaman.

Save the Children and GSK

This is another of those posts that has taken a while to construct. My personal life took a kick in the gonads recently and I've been mulling over where I go from here. Do I continue down the path that I've been walking since the conception of this blog or do I change and write that fictional novel I've been meaning to write for some years now?**

Do I continue to answer emails from people who want my help or do I just give it all up and ignore them all? There's times when I feel deflated, none more so than this period in my life. It's a period where you truly find out who your close friends are and whether or not you are made of steel, as many think to seem bloggers who go up against the likes of GSK, are. Truth is, I'm just like you, I'm human. I feel pain and every single human emotion that others feel. There's some people who go through life seeking revenge, these people just cannot operate without feeling revenge, they spoil the life of others and see it as Karma, when in actual fact it serves only to make them feel better because their current lives are blighted by an inability to move on and let go of the past. Ironically, both individuals have suffered loss so know what it feels like, their goal, it appears, was to inflict that pain upon someone else by colluding together to throw a spanner in the works of something that was quite beautiful.

The whole experience has left me feeling somewhat broken, so both individuals should take a bow at this point - Job done. Ironically they both share the same letter in their first names. They know who they are - I just hope now that they feel a sense of satisfaction and are able to move on with their lives, just as I am trying to do... I digress.

Corresponding with Save the Children has been difficult but it's kept me focused on what needs to be done (in this instance anyhow). Both they and GSK have been working together since 2005 on a number of public health projects, including GSK’s initiative to reinvest 20% of the profits it makes in least-developed-countries back into community programmes to strengthen healthcare infrastructure, primarily through the training of community health workers. Their current partnership, to help save the lives of one million children, builds on this existing partnership and will help them achieve their ambitions for children.

You can see my dilemma here. On one hand I applaud the efforts of Save the Children for taking measures to help children, on the other I feel that partnering with GSK is morally wrong.

In an email to Save the Children I asked if it were GSK who approached them or if it was they who approached GSK.

Here's the reply...

Save the Children and GSK have actually been working together since 2005, which began with a community health and well-being programme called ‘PHASE’ – Personal Hygiene and Sanitation Education. Save the Children approached GSK to explore their potential support for our health programmes . Our global partnership with GSK was further developed and formalised in 2012, when the CEO of Save the Children was invited to speak as part of a GSK leadership conference. The discussions that took place at this event initiated the process to explore a more ambitious partnership between both organisations.

With this admission, I wrote back to Save the Children with the following...

As I am sure you are aware GSK recently pleaded guilty and were fined over $3 billion in the US for promoting drugs to children off-label. One of these drugs, Paxil, which goes by the brand name of Seroxat here in the UK, causes suicidal thinking in children. At the time of the off-label promotion GSK knew of this particular side effect but failed to inform medicine regulators and healthcare professionals. A result of which has saw children and teenagers go on to complete suicide.

My question to Save the Children is one of ethics.

Knowing that GSK promoted a drug that could harm children (and they (GSK) knew of the potential risk but failed to warn), do you (Save the Children) believe that a partnership with GSK is morally correct?

If you believe it is, please state your reasons.

I thought by asking them a direct question would, at the very least, tap in to their conscience, assuming they had one.

Stay tuned for their response.


Footnote


To me, at least, it's about giving children a voice. This vulnerable population, at times, need someone to speak up on their behalf. I'm not, or have I ever, professed to be a martyr. When I see the likes of GSK teaming up with an organisation who have children's best interests at heart it makes my blood boil for two reasons.

1. GSK have an abhorrent history regarding Paxil and children.

2. Save the Children would have already done their homework yet chose the unmoral path.

The picture that accompanies this article reads, "Don't Believe Everything You Think" ~ a valuable parable when trying to make the correct choices in life. I'm at the stage of letting go of believing everything I think, to go down that path is destructive. Save the Children, on the other hand, have evidence that their partners, GSK, were up to no good... yet they still wish to remain partners.

I'll never quite understand relationships.

**For what it's worth, I'm going to continue writing, albeit with my foot off the gas for a while. I need to make changes in my life ~ writing a fictional novel is just the start of that change.

Bob Fiddaman.

Are GSK Breaking Bad?

Recent revelations arising from a whistleblower sent to GSK and the Reuters news service has alleged that GSK were embroiled in a smuggling scheme to ship the drug component pseudoephedrine to Iran from Syria via Iraq. 

GlaxoSmithKline manufacture and market Sudafed, a drug used to treat Bronchospasm, Nasal congestion, Rhinitis and Upper respiratory tract infections. The composition of Sudafed is pseudoephedrine, the same compound GSK have been accused of smuggling, or scheming to smuggle, to Iran.

What is a "Sudafed Smurf"?

According to Bob Cooke, a retired special agent-in-charge, California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, organized crime members are part of a network that go from store to store buying PSE (pseudoephedrine). In some cases, they are addicts. They shred the pills/tablets from the blister packs and sell them in bulk to a wholesaler that will furnish them to a methamphetamine lab operator. [1]

Last year a letter appeared on the National Center for Biotechnology Information website. The letter, written by Zahra Alam Mehrjerdi, was titled, "Crystal in Iran: methamphetamine or heroin kerack". [2]

He writes...

Using opiates has a long history in Iran . Opium and its pharmacological and psychotropic effects were known for several thousand years among Iranians especially for managing general medical conditions such as pain, colic problems, headaches, and implementing anesthesia but methamphetamine (MA) is a new psychostimulant drug and its abuse has recently surged in popularity especially among young individuals in Iran. Methamphetamine is available in different forms such as pure crystalline hydrochloride salt. The main routes of methamphetamine administration include smoking, sniffing, injection and ingestion.

If the allegations against GSK are true then are we to believe that they merely schemed to ship Sudafed to Iran to treat people with nasal congestion problems or were their motives more sinister?

According to a 2013 study by the United Nations [3], the first report of the manufacture of methamphetamine in Tehran, Iran's capital, was in 2008 when authorities seized four mom-and-pop labs operating in the city. By 2012, Iran was the world's fourth biggest importer of pseudoephedrine, the main precursor chemical used in crystal meth production. More than half a million Iranians have used the drug at least once.

Although the recent GSK/Syria allegations may only seem mild in comparison to the allegations they are currently facing in China, if one digs deeper into the alleged smuggling scheme then one may just find that GSK were illegally exporting... or had plans to illegally export a compound used in crystal meth production.

If true then GlaxoSmithKline have stooped to a new level.

Back in 2010 GSK's Cidra plant in Puerto Rico came under the spotlight. Part of the complaint filed alleged that employees of GlaxoSmithKline diverted reject drug product from the Cidra plant to black markets in Latin America. This, however, was never proven... or it was, more than likely dropped as part of the settlement agreement made with whistleblower Cheryl Eckard [4]

Now, I'm a blogger and researcher. I don't have the money or means at my disposal to look into the pseudoephedrine smuggling allegations.

Plenty of media outlets out there that do though.

Food for thought, huh?

Some good resources for journalists

From the French Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction -  The drug market in Iran

From  the National Center for Biotechnology Information website - Methamphetamin abuse a new concern in Iran

From  the National Center for Biotechnology Information website - Emergence of a methamphetamine crisis in Iran

Finally, if allegations are proven to be true what does the future hold for GlaxoSmithKline's partnership with the Save The Children charity organisation?

There is a critical drug abuse crisis among Iranian high school students, street children and generally Iranian youth and adolescents. [5]

If allegations are proven then it could be argued that GSK have been part of the drug problem in Iran rather than the solution.

Glaxo's alleged violations in Syria is just one country where they are currently under investigation for similar incidents, others include Bahrain, China, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Poland, Qatar, UK, United Arab Emirates, USA.





Bob Fiddaman.


[1] What is a "Sudafed Smurf"?
[2] Crystal in Iran: methamphetamine or heroin kerack
[3] United Nations World Drug Report 2013
[4] GlaxoSmithKline - Filthy, Disgusting, Abhorrent...and that's Just the Plant! Read the Charges!
[5] Substance abuse among Iranian high school students

Are the Australian Government Under the Spell of the Pharmaceutical Industry?

"Huggy Bear"  Fictional character who played a pimp in the 70's cop show Starsky and Hutch.

Quite often when a reader throws me a link to research I sit and ponder whether or not it merits further investigation. When a sharp eyed Australian reader of my blog recently sent me a link to the Australian Medicines Industry webpage, I kinda shrugged my shoulders and muttered "Yup" under my breath.

The Australian Medicines Industry,  formerly known as The Pharmaceutical Association, represents 80% of all Australian pharmaceutical companies. They appear to lobby the government and get consumer organisations to promote drugs, at least that's the way I see it.

What I find baffling is another body, namely Medicines Australia.

As far as I can see, Medicines Australia represents The Australian Medicines Industry but they would appear to be one and the same.

Here, Dr Brendan Shaw announces a new public website that seeks to raise awareness of the industry’s contribution to the health and wealth of the nation. The article cites Shaw as being The Australian Medicines Industry spokesman.


Yet this video sees him as the spokesperson for Medicines Australia?

Confused?

Even more confusing is the registrant of The Australian Medicines Industry website is Medicines Australia [Fig 1]

Fig 1

The Australian Medicines Industry and Medicines Australia are basically the equivalent of The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry [ABPI], the body that protects pharma from pesky patients requesting information about pharmaceutical products, they probably coined the term, "Talk to your doctor."

One only has to contact GSK to ask them about one of their prescription products. Any "Dear GSK, Can you help me withdraw from your product" type of letter is usually met with, "Dear Consumer, Under the ABPI Code of Practice...blah, blah, blah.... we therefore suggest you talk to your doctor....blah, blah, blah....

I can only assume that they have the same system set up in Australia.

A short time ago, I received a promotional pack of Aropax through the post. Aropax is yet another brand name or the SSRi antidepressant Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US and Canada and a whole host of different names throughout the world.

The Aropax promotional pack is from 2002 and it's my understanding that only a handful of these still exist today, luckily I have one.

I have, on two occasions, contacted GSK Australia and asked them about this particular promotion. They have never replied. With this in mind, I sent the following to Medicines Australia to see if they could have thrown some light on the 2002 promotion of Aropax in Australia:


1. How many patients were enrolled in the a plus project?


2. How many of the patients were under the age of 18?


3. Did the starter packs just contain packets of Aropax with 20mg tablets or were there starter packs with lower doses?


4. What were the qualifications and training of the counsellors on the a plus project?


5. What were the sales trends of Aropax in Australia before, during and after the a plus project?


6.How much did GlaxoSmithKline pay individual key opinion leaders, including (but not limited to) Professor Graham Burrows and Professor Bruce Singh? What were the services for which each was paid?


7. What were the goals of the a plus project?


8. How long did the a plus project run for?


9. How many adverse reactions were reported for Aropax during the project?


10. Were participants on the a plus project ever followed up or did GlaxoSmithKline Australia lose touch with the participants once the project had finished?


11. Why was the project ended?


12. Was the a plus project deemed a success by GlaxoSmithKline?


13. Has GlaxoSmithKline or its subsidiaries ever offered similar counselling sessions to patients taking other drugs manufactured by the company?


14. How much did GlaxoSmithKline pay for sponsorship of the Depression Awareness Journal around the time of the a plus project?

For an introduction into GlaxoSmithKline's promotional tool for Aropax watch this short video I made: [Forgive the Brummie accent]




I though it was reasonable of me to ask Medicines Australia about GSK's marketing tactics, they do seem to have a very good relationship with them, as a matter of fact, today sees them 'big up' Glaxo on their page. The Royal Flying Doctor Service [Queensland and Victoria] and Save the Children being two key partnerships recently secured with GSK Australia.


When I see the word 'children' and 'GSK' in the same sentence I normally hear alarm bells.

Medicines Australia replied within 48 hours, it was a peculiar email to say the least.

With the above questions, I wrote:

Dear Sirs,

I have wrote to GSK Australia on two separate occasions regarding the promotion of Aropax in Australia in 2002. Sadly, for reasons only known to them, they have failed to respond.

I therefore request that Medicine's Australia intervene and either answer the questions I put to GSK or urge GSK Australia to give me answers.

Medicines Australia replied with:

You have sent your email to a non-manned mailbox at Medicines Australia.
Medicines Australia is the industry association representing pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Medicines Australia is not interested in your services and no action has been taken with regard to your email.
Many Thanks
Medicines Australia

Non-manned? Weird that a non-manned inbox has the ability to tell me that it is not interested in my services? Weird that Medicines Australia would set up an email system to 'bounce' emails back to the sender...without actually reading what was sent?

Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.

So, the 2002 Aropax promotion by GSK in Australia still remains shrouded in secrecy. GSK won't answer me, neither will Medicines Australia. I'd ask the Aussie government but it would appear they are already having a back scratching session with Medicines Australia.


Will Delaat, Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Industry Council and former "Independent" Chairman of Medicines Australia, recently addressed Medicines Australia's 2011 Parliamentary dinner, where the theme of the evening was "Innovation for the Health of the Nation."

Here's part of Delaat's speech:

It’s about shining a light on how the health and productivity of our people, and the health our economy, benefit from the Australian medicines industry.

It’s about shining a light on the importance of the right policy settings from Government to enable and encourage a viable medicines industry.

It’s about shining a light on the importance of a robust intellectual property framework in Australia.

But it’s also about something much more straightforward than that. It’s about celebrating a great success story - the Australian medicines industry.

• An industry that delivers the latest medicines and vaccines to Australian patients and contributes to improved health and productivity outcomes.

• An industry that employs 14,000 Australians in high-skill, high wage jobs – 72 per cent of whom are tertiary educated.

• An industry that contributes more than $4.1 billion in manufacturing exports, more than any other high tech industry.

• An industry that undertakes 800 clinical trials in Australia each year.

• An industry that attracts more than $1 billion a year in global R&D investment – more than the automotive industry.In short, the medicines industry is one of Australia’s key innovative technology industries, which contributes to the nation’s social and economic development in a number of ways.

The medicines and vaccines the industry researches, develops, manufactures and brings to the community play a vital role in treating illness, and helping people live healthier, happier, more productive lives.

Tie this together with the Australian government ploughing money into Patrick McGorry's early intervention program [a model whereby children can be diagnosed with a mental disorder...before they actually get it] and you have a very cosy, exclusive pill pushing club who, when brought to task, claim that you are either a conspiracy theorist or Scientologist! [Back story]

Australian's need to start asking questions of this bed hopping. Exactly who is running your country? Is it Prime Minister Julia Gillard or is it the pharmaceutical industry?

**Footnote - The father of Prime Minister Julia Gillard is a former psychiatric nurse.


Fid 


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING 


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE