Zantac Lawsuit


Researching drug company and regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years
Humanist, humorist

Sunday, May 16, 2010

MHRA ISSUE WARNING: SSRIs and SNRIs: Risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension in the newborn




Is this one of them moments where a patient can turn around to the MHRA and say, "I told you so."?

Much of my correspondence with the MHRA, indeed with their CEO, Kent Woods, regarding Seroxat being a teratogen is in my book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal.

At the time of writing the book, the MHRA were fence sitting but this months safety update from the MHRA sees a crystal clear message.

They write:

Advice for healthcare professionals:

• Healthcare professionals, including midwives, should be aware of the increased risk of PPHN associated with all SSRIs and potentially with SNRIs. The observed increase in risk is about an extra 3–4 cases of PPHN per 1000 pregnancies.

• In light of these new data, healthcare professionals are encouraged to enquire about the use of these medicines, particularly in women in the later stages of pregnancy.

• Close observation of neonates exposed to SSRIs or SNRIs for signs of PPHN is recommended after birth.


There is still no mention of these drugs being teratogenic?

Regular readers of this blog will know that for some time I was liaising with the MHRA almost on a daily basis. The issue of whether Seroxat is a teratogen was the straw that broke the camels back and I refused to speak with them after receiving an answer [of sorts] from them regarding the Seroxat/Teratogen affair.

On the 5th of November, 2009 I sent an email to Sarah Morgan, Head of Pharmacovigilance Risk Management, at the MHRA. I also copied in Simon Gregor, Director of Communications at the MHRA. The question was short and sweet, Is paroxetine a teratogen?

Chapter 18 of my book highlights all the correspondence between myself and the MHRA. I'd even wrote to GlaxoSmithKline, the National Poisons Information Service [NPIS] and Yellow Card Centre Northern and Yorkshire Regional Drug and Therapeutics Centre. Between all four of them, not one could give me a straight answer.

The NPIS wrote:

"I am afraid we do not take enquiries from the public. If you are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant and are on paroxetine then talk to your GP or midwife who will advise you."


The Yellow Card Centre Northern and Yorkshire Regional Drug and Therapeutics Centre also fence sat with:

"Unfortunately here at the Yellow Card Centre Northern and Yorkshire we do not handle teratology enquiries. There is a dedicated teratology line for health professionals only listed in the BNF. Should you be a member of the public I suggest you make an appointment to discuss this with your GP."


GlaxoSmithKline refused to answer the question directly because I was not a health care professional. They wrote:

"GlaxoSmithKline works within the guidelines set out in the Code of Practice of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI). This does not allow us to provide patients with advice about medicines which are available on prescription because any advice we might give could conflict with that of your own doctor who is in a far better position to advise you. Therefore, to enable GSK to provide you with the most relevant information please can you confirm if you are a health care professional."


The MHRA wrote me [eventually].

The opening paragraph sets the tone for the three page answer!

"The question “Is paroxetine a teratogen?” is not as straight forward as it may appear."


The three page answer along with my replies to them and further correspondence with their CEO, Kent Woods is all in my book.

I still stand by my decision not to correspond with the MHRA any more.

The recent MHRA update kinda proves how fickle they are.

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Thursday, May 13, 2010

GSK's Titty Tantrum Over Cafe Pharma


Have Glaxo shot themselves in the foot?
Image: willohroots.files.wordpress.com


It's not often I laugh at the tactics of GSK but this latest had me biting the leg of my table - I was in a state of complete apoplexy upon reading Ed Silverman's article,
Glaxo Blocks Employee Access To CafePharma.

It appears Glaxo don't like what is being said on the boards at Cafe Pharma, so, just like big powerful multi-billionaires do, they block access to the website.

I have, in the past, posted various threads from the Cafe Pharma forum - much is posted anonymously so it's difficult to ascertain whether or not the posts are genuine. However, there are some posts of real quality on there and it's obvious to all and sundry that there are many disgruntled employees working for GlaxoSmithKline.

I find this latest move by GSK totally baffling. Their PR Department must have handed its reigns over to some kid on a youth opportunities employment programme or something.

If you want to get the backs up of those you employ then try and suppress them.

This is one almighty clanger dropped by GSK - Did they not foresee this?

I'm glad they didn't because now we can all have a good laugh at their expense.

Here's a thread from Cafe Pharma that is comic genius. [Cafepharma access Blocked at GSK]

I can just picture it now:

GSK employee has bad day.

Decides to post on Cafe Pharma.

Learns that access has been blocked.



Goes home later that evening and spills the beans on GSK.

Genius PR from Glaxo!


Memo to the guys and gals over at the GSK Cafe Pharma Forum:

COME VISIT MY BLOG - MY COMMENT SECTION IS ALWAYS OPEN FOR DEBATE.

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Misleading Drug Promotions? They've being Doing It For Years!


Well, it appears the FDA are on some sort of mission, 'appears' being the operative word here as they, like the MHRA, often talk the talk but rarely walk the walk.

The FDA announced earlier this week that they were cracking down on misleading or inaccurate promotion of prescription medications, apparently designed to educate health care professionals so that physicians and others can help the agency.

They have eyes don't they?

The FDA'S 'Bad Ad Program' have even designed a brochure for us all to download. My lack of faith in medicine regulators sees this as a 'cover ourselves in garlands' exercise.

I have to laugh at this, particularly as last year I highlighted on my blog that the UK regulator, the MHRA, had teamed up with pharma giant's Pfizer to launch a series of ad-campaigns throughout UK cinema's.

Here's their second ad



Pretty strong stuff, eh?

The message is quite clear. Don't buy your drugs off the Internet because they are probably fake. In other words, Pfizer's Viagra is losing sales due to people selling different versions of them online.

Of course, the MHRA would take a different stance, spouting that Internet sales of fake pharmaceutical products is a big problem. It probably is... but not half as big as the problem of consumers struggling with severe side-effects of the drugs they have popped that have been manufactured by the 'industry'.

The MHRA followed up with a poster and website campaign. Once again Pfizer were on board to help promote this campaign.

Here's one of the posters from their website, REALDANGER. Get Real, Get a Prescription™



I can't really claim that the above ad is misleading but it's just an example of the regulator working with the industry rather than with the patient.



Here's an ad that aired in the UK last year - remember, prescription medication is not allowed promotion on British TV.



I found the ad misleading:

"40% of men over 40 may have suffered some degree of erectile dysfunction," says the voiceover. This claim is then juxtaposed with a pop-up subtitle that states: "12 year study of US males. The Massachusetts Male Aging Study 1994."



Firstly, why is an ad airing on British TV using data that refers to American men and secondly, why are they using a study to back up their claim that is 15 years old?


The ad promotes the website 40over40.com, a website sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company.

I pondered complaining to the MHRA but it seems they have already received a complaint about this particular ad, a complaint that they did not uphold!

** Prohibition of advertisements for medicinal products on prescription only
7. Subject to regulation 11, no person shall issue an advertisement which is likely to lead to the use of a relevant medicinal product which is a medicinal product for supply by prescription only and which is subject to any of the restrictions imposed by section 58(2) of the Act.


Source: The Medicines (Advertising) Regulations 1994

So, if the FDA are really serious about misleading drug promotions, they, like the MHRA, need to get their own house in order first.

Here's a few ads the where the FDA previously buried their heads in the sand.

See if you can spot the deliberate flaws.

[Ad for Paxil 1999] [Back story]


Here's a Paxil ad from the year 2000



...more of the same from 2002



There are many more to view on youtube.com [Paxil Ad Search]

The FDA's new "Bad Ad Program" aims to ensure that promotional information is accurate, balances the risks and benefits of a product, is consistent with prescribing information approved by the FDA, and includes only information that is supported by strong evidence from clinical studies.

I'd write more about this but my concentration has just been broken by a pig flying past my window!

Fid



PAPERBACK COMING SOON.

PROMOTIONAL VIDEO HERE




Book: The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg by Doug Bremner




I remember when I first came across the name, 'Doug Bremner', I thought he was just another shill from Emory, a University that has provided us with so many pharma whores down the years.

I was wrong.

Doug and I have corresponded many times over the last 12 months or so, he has even offered me advice regarding my book.

He's one of the good guys.

Doug is now in the process of promoting his new book, 'THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG: A Pharmaceutical Industry Morality Tale'

Here's the blurb:

Described by one reader as "Erin Brockovich meets 'The Constant Gardener,'" the work tells the story of Professor Doug Bremner, a researcher and psychiatrist who blew the whistle on the dangers of Accutane, a prescription medication for the treatment of acne that produces toxic side effects causing depression and resulting in numerous suicides. As a result, he got chewed up and spit out by Roche Pharmaceuticals of Nutley, NJ, the company that earned a billion dollars a year from marketing this drug. Bremner describes his struggles with the drug company and the toll they took on his career, marriage and family. The book reads like a thriller because Bremner's narrative involves greed, power, lust, lies, tragedy, danger and death.

Drawn into the medication controversy as an unwilling participant, Bremner learns that he must confront the lies and deception in his own life before he can confront those of others. Thus, a second thread involves the sudden death of Bremner's mother when he was four and a half years old. With nothing to lose, he embarks on a journey to uncover the truth about his mother. He must overcome 40 years of lies and distortion about facts related to her death. Eventually, he locates his mother's ashes, and he and his siblings buy a tombstone and have a ceremony where they place it over their mother's burial site in Olympia, Washington.

With legal battles turning against it as well as dwindling sales resulting from the growing awareness of the dangers of the drug, Roche withdraws Accutane from the market in June 2009, thus providing Bremner's ultimate vindication.
Overall, the book reveals the inner workings of a large network of interrelated, profit-driven healthcare institutions, which include drug companies, hospitals, doctors, the FDA and the infrastructure that supports medical research and academic medicine. It is about the struggle between greed and power and truth and justice, one that affects us all
.

Doug is currently professor of psychiatry and radiology, Doug Bremner, MD, is also director of the Emory Clinical Neuroscience Research Unit at Emory University School of Medicine and is director of mental health research at the Atlanta VA Medical Center. He is the author of BEFORE YOU TAKE THAT PILL: Why the Drug Industry May Be Bad for Your Health (Avery, 2008).

I have to take my hat off to professionals who are willing to put their careers on the line. I'm merely a blogger so am basically not restricted with my opinions. Doug and people like him have much more to lose when they blow the whistle against the darker side of pharmaceutical drugs.

I salute you Doug.

Doug's blog, Before You Take That Pill, can be read HERE

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Staff Report on GlaxoSmithKline and the Diabetes Drug Avandia


Image: static.guim.co.uk


GlaxoSmithKline's Avandia and the way the FDA handled complaints about it have been highlighted at a recent US Congressional hearing.

The report, by Sens Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, concluded that there are "serious health risks associated with Avandia."

Subcommittee chair Rep Rosa DeLauro said: "This report poses several troubling questions for this subcommittee. Most obviously, if Avandia is unsafe, how did it ever get on the market in the first place? For that matter, why is it still on the market, right now? And what does the case of Avandia tell us about the FDA's current ability to conduct its drug safety responsibilities?".

Grassley, Dr Harlan Krumholz [Yale University School of Medicine], and Dr Sidney Wolfe [Public Citizen] told the congressional hearing that the system allows companies to suppress negative clinical data on their drugs.

Summing up Grassley told the hearing that GlaxoSmithKline knew years before Nissen's meta-analysis was published that rosiglitazone [Avandia] may increase the risk of Myocardial infarction, commonly known as a heart attack, but suppressed that information and that safety experts at the FDA had also expressed concerns about the drug, but these were ignored by the leaders at the agency.

GlaxoSmithKline responds

GlaxoSmithKline issued a statement reiterating points the company has made repeatedly in the past, emphasizing that the best evidence to date comes from RECORD, which showed no safety issues with Avandia, and that judgment should be reserved until the FDA-directed TIDE trial has been completed and analyzed.

"In the years since the FDA convened the joint advisory committee meeting to address questions about the cardiovascular safety of Avandia, six large, prospective, randomized, clinical trials have reported results. None of these randomized clinical trials . . . shows a statistically significant association between Avandia and myocardial infarction or other ischemic cardiovascular events," the statement reads.

GlaxoSmithKline also rejects suggestions made in the February Senate report that the company failed to present an accurate, balanced, or complete view of the currently available information on Avandia. "A fair examination of the company's record will show that GlaxoSmithKline has been diligent in its efforts to thoroughly study the safety and effectiveness of rosiglitazone and to widely communicate that information to governments, regulatory authorities, scientific peers, physicians, and others in a variety of ways," it says
.

Déjà vu anyone?


Full damning report can now be downloaded HERE

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Brace Yourselves GSK - Possible $1bn in Avandia Settlements





Yet more money thrown at a problem. No criminal charges just dollars, gagging orders and no admission of liability.

The Financial Times is today reporting that GlaxoSmithKline may have to pay up to $1Billion [£670Million] to settle side-effect claims on its diabetes medicine Avandia.

The Financial Times writes:

The pharmaceutical company is close to finalising an out-of-court deal for about $60m with a group of 700 plaintiffs who claim the drug caused strokes and heart attacks
.

Adding:

GSK has never disclosed the number of lawsuits it faces concerning Avandia, and refused to comment yesterday on the settlement.


I find it strange that they have 'refused to comment,' I'm kind of missing the normal, "Avandia has helped millions of people world-wide" type of comment from one of their spokespersons.

Both GlaxoSmithKline and the US drug regulators, the FDA, were criticised in a Senate report for their handling of Avandia earlier this year.

FULL STORY


Staying on-topic, GlaxoSmithKline are heading for the High Court in London later this year to defend their drug Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US.

GlaxoSmithKline are defending claims that Seroxat has propensity to cause withdrawal reactions.

Glaxo have reportedly already paid out almost $1Billion to resolve lawsuits over Paxil since it introduced the antidepressant in 1993. [Source]

Last year GlaxoSmithKline were found guilty by a majority of 10-2 that Seroxat caused a child, Lyam Kilker, to be born with heart defects. At the time there were a further 630 or so other cases pending. Glaxo, it appears, have been quietly settling these cases out of court.



Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Leaders On Thin Ice - The Cameron - Clegg Dance

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!




Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

June 4, 2007 - The FDA, GlaxoSmithKline and the Avandia Disaster


Image: static.guim.co.uk

Following on from today's announcement on Bloomberg regarding GlaxoSmithKline making out of court settlements re their drug, Avandia.

Here is an article written by investigative journalist, Evelyn Pringle.

Evie penned this in 2007.

I think it's about high time that this suppression and obvious denial, stops, right here, right now.

If there is one thing in life I must do, it is to meet Evelyn Pringle so I can kneel down before her uttering, "We are not worthy" - This woman deserves a Pulitzer for uncovering the dodgy goings-on within the pharmaceutical industry and the supposed drug regulators.

Evie, this blog salutes you.

June 4, 2007

Partners in Crime

The FDA, GlaxoSmithKline and the Avandia Disaster

By EVELYN PRINGLE

On May 21, 2007, the New England Journal of Medicine reported a study that found GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia is associated with a 43% increase in heart attacks and possibly a 64% increase in cardiovascular death. The NEJM said it posted the article online ahead of its June 6, 2007 print edition because of its medical importance.

Experts point out that the studies analyzed for the NEJM report were not designed to look for heart risks, many were only 24 weeks long, and it may be that higher risks will appear after a longer term of use. Dr David Nathan, chief of diabetes care at Massachusetts General Hospital, who reviewed the paper for the NEJM, told the Associated Press, "This analysis is just scratching the surface of what may be there."

Avandia (rosiglitazone) was FDA approved in 1999 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, a disease that affects between 18 to 20 million Americans.

When approved, Glaxo promoted Avandia as being safer than Rezulin, a diabetes drug removed from the market in 2000 after serious cases of liver damage developed in patients taking the drug.

Avandia is currently the top selling diabetes drug with total US sales of $2.2 billion in 2006, according to IMS Health, a healthcare tracking information firm. A one-month supply sells for between $90 and $170, the Associated Press reported on May 23, 2007.

"More than 6 million people worldwide," the Associated Press reports, "have taken the drug to control blood sugar since it came on the market eight years ago, and about 1 million Americans use it now."

The FDA is going to have an extremely tough time wiggling out from under the rug of blame for this regulatory failure. The situation "reflects very badly on the FDA and on Glaxo," Dr Nathan said. "It's the FDA's responsibility to be monitoring this stuff."

In an editorial that accompanied the study in the NEJM, Dr Bruce Psaty of the University of Washington and Dr Furberg of Wake Forest University wrote: The drug "represents a major failure of the drug-use and drug-approval processes in the United States."

They also state that "the rationale for prescribing rosiglitazone at this time is unclear," because when the drug was approved its benefits were "at best mixed."

Documents dating back 7 years show the FDA knew about the risks associated with Avandia and did nothing to protect consumers. The day after the new study appeared online, on May 23, 2007, Dr Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen, a non-profit health research group, sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, which described a July 16, 2002 FDA memo that showed FDA scientists had recommended that the label for Avandia be amended to include post-marketing reports of heart failure among patients taking the drug.

"The failure of the FDA to act on the recommendations made almost five years ago by its Division of Drug Risk Evaluation is yet another case in which the conclusions of scientists who are engaged in post-market drug safety review are not taken seriously enough or addressed soon enough," Dr Wolfe said in a press release.

"As a result," he stated further, "millions of people -- to the detriment of their health -- are prescribed drugs whose risks are dangerously understated, instead of being prescribed safer, equally or more effective alternative drugs."

According to the memo, in July 2002, the FDA had 25 adverse reaction reports in which the use of Avandia resulted in hospitalization for heart failure. By the fall of 2006, the number of cases had increased to 415, Public Citizen reports.

Another memo dated May 22, 2002, submitted to the FDA by Dr. Wolfe and Larry Sasich for an FDA Hearing on Risk Management of Prescription Drugs informed the panel that a Glaxo-employed physician had contacted Public Citizen to report that the company was concealing reports of serious problems found with the drug.

"This week," they informed the FDA, "we received an anonymous call from a GlaxoSmithKline physician who was alarmed at the failure of his company to require a black box warning concerning heart failure caused by Avandia."

"He maintained that the company currently has 450 reports of heart failure associated with the use of the drug and over 1200 reports of edema," the statement said.

Nearly two years earlier, on March 15, 2000, Dr. John Buse, an Associate Professor of Medicine and Director of a Diabetes Care Center in Durham, North Carolina, sent a letter to then FDA Commissioner, Dr Jane Henney, warning the FDA about the risks of Avandia and describing the abuse of clinical trial data by Glaxo.

"I remain concerned about the safety of rosiglitazone," Dr Buse wrote, "in light of its consistent negative impact on lipids documented in the FDA registration data as well as a worrisome trend in cardiovascular deaths and severe adverse events in the subjects exposed to rosiglitazone versus active comparators."

Dr Buse warned, "I think the FDA has to act forcefully to prevent the rampant abuse of clinical trial data by SmithKline Beecham."

He warned Dr Henney that Glaxo was overstating the safety of Avandia with respect to cardiovascular issues. "I have been shown glossy materials claiming that rosiglitazone has been uniquely studied in patients with preexisting cardiac disease," he wrote, "including patients with a number of associated conditions (such as unstable angina)."

"I know for a fact," he noted, "that such patients are excluded in clinical trials as I am a PI [Principal Investigator] in one of their trials."

Lawmakers in both Houses of Congress reacted to the news of another FDA regulatory failure immediately. On May 21, 2007 the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform announced that a hearing would be held on June 6, 2007, at 10:00 am in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, to assess the FDA's role in the evaluation of the safety of Avandia.

Committee chairman, Rep Henry Waxman (D-CA) extended an invitation to the author of the NEJM article, cardiologist, Dr Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, to testify at the hearing and discuss his article.

Dr Nissen and statistician Kathy Wolski, MPH, evaluated 42 studies involving nearly 28,000 patients and compared the 15,560 patients who were using Avandia to the patients who were not using the drug. The study found there were 86 myocardial infarctions in the Avandia group and 72 in the control group and there were 39 deaths from cardiovascular causes in Avandia patients compared to 22 in the control group.

Rep Waxman also sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach requesting his testimony at the hearing. In addition, he instructed the Commissioner to provide the Committee with specific information from August 1, 2005, to the present to include: (1) A chronology of actions taken by FDA in relation to the cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone; (2) All communications between GlaxoSmithKline and the FDA relating to cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone; and (3) All internal FDA analyses, slide presentations, and memoranda relating to the cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone.

"In complying with this request," Rep Waxman advised the Commissioner, "you should produce all responsive documents in your possession, custody, or control."

Rep Waxman also told the Commissioner, "you should submit a written certification, signed by you or your counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of all documents in your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain responsive documents: and (2) all documents located during the search that are responsive have been produced to the Committee or identified in a privilege log."

And last but not least, Rep Waxman sent a letter to Glaxo CEO, Dr Jean-Pierre Garnier, asking him to appear. "We request that you come prepared to discuss your company's actions with regard to the cardiovascular safety of Avandia," the letter states.

Over in the US Senate, Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley, Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over the Medicare and Medicaid programs, issued a public statement and sent letters to the FDA and Glaxo demanding they provide specific documents and other information to the Committee.

"What we are learning about the handling of Avandia," Sen Baucus said in the statement, "by both GlaxoSmithKline and the FDA is appalling and unacceptable."

"Both the drug company and the FDA," he said, "have some major explaining to do about what they knew about Avandia, when they knew it, and why they didn't take immediate action to protect patients."

"We need to know if this is another Vioxx," Senator Grassley stated, "where the FDA sat on its hands and endangered lives."

"The FDA," he continued, "has talked a good game about how it's beefed up post-market
surveillance over the last two years, but a case like this undermines that claim."

Experts say the new study findings are alarming because two-thirds of the people with type 2 diabetes die of heart problems. In a May 21, 2007 letter to Christopher Viehbacher, President, US Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Senators Baucus and Grassley wrote, "It is troubling, to say the least, that by taking Avandia, diabetics may be increasing their risk of the very adverse event that they hope to prevent by controlling their blood sugar."

"To make matters worse," they advised, "American taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this drug through the Medicare and Medicaid programs."

"One of the most immediate concerns to us," they told Mr Viehbacher, "are reports that GSK employees silenced one or more medical professionals who attempted to speak out about the potential for cardiovascular problems with Avandia."

"This allegation is very serious and warrants further investigation," the Senators wrote.

According to plaintiffs attorney, Karen Barth Menzies of Baum Hedlund, a law firm that has been litigating drug related cases against Glaxo since 2001, "The relationship between FDA and the drug industry is disturbing. We've seen internal correspondence between GSK and the FDA that would cause anyone to question the objectivity and regulatory effectiveness of the FDA. Apparently the FDA has failed yet again to protect the public - to the benefit of pharmaceutical industry profits. This failure, and FDA's derogatory attitude towards Dr. Nissen's study, should sound an alarm to all healthcare providers, patients and legislators that the problem is systemic. Patient safety commands serious change in the agency and the industry."

Already, legal conferences are being scheduled to discuss the legal implications of this latest drug safety scandal. Karen Barth Menzies is an invited speaker at an upcoming legal conference regarding Avandia. The conference will include Avandia's background, the science behind the drug, its side effects as well as the FDA's role in regulating Avandia.

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Glaxo's $60 Million in Avandia Settlements‎





Latest news from Bloomberg suggests that GlaxoSmithKline have agreed to pay about $60 million in the first settlements of lawsuits alleging the company’s Avandia diabetes drug causes heart attacks and strokes in some users.

The full story can be read HERE

I've just highlighted the denials.

“GlaxoSmithKline stands by Avandia and is fully prepared to defend any litigation,” Bernadette King, a company spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.

London-based Glaxo’s decision to settle cases before they comes to trial will save the company time, money and embarrassment, said Richard Nagareda, a Vanderbilt University law professor who teaches classes on mass-tort law.

“It sounds like they’ve beaten down the price on these cases to the point that there isn’t that much benefit from taking them to trial,” Nagareda said in an interview.

Glaxo officials contend former Avandia users who suffered heart attacks can’t link them to the drug and the drugmaker didn’t hide the medicine’s health risks.

Glaxo is “confident that when courts and juries look at actual clinical data, the manner in which we communicated with the FDA and physicians and our openness in posting studies on our website, the facts will support our position,” King, Glaxo’s director of product communications, said in the e-mail.

Andrew Witty, Glaxo’s chief executive officer, said in an interview last week that he was confident about Avandia’s “risk-benefit profile” and the company’s handling of the drug.

“The only thing I ask for is that qualified scientists with the right evidence and data calmly look at the information,” he said. “The company’s done all the right things in terms of sharing that data with the regulators and working with the regulators to update the label.”

In their Avandia suits, consumers contend Glaxo officials refuse to take the drug off the market even though studies have shown it poses an increased risk of heart attack and stroke compared with competing medicines.

A report by two U.S. senators in February noted U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulators urged Glaxo to withdraw Avandia from the market in 2008 because it was causing 500 avoidable heart attacks a month.

The report, by Senators Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, also said Glaxo officials sought to intimidate doctors who criticized the drug. Dr. John Buse, a University of North Carolina Medical School professor, gave presentations highlighting Avandia’s risks, the senators said.

Glaxo officials complained to Buse’s supervisor and threatened to take legal action over the statements, the report said. Buse later agreed to stop criticizing the drug, according to the report.

Glaxo officials rejected the senators’ contentions that it concealed safety information about Avandia or used improper marketing tactics. They said the report contained “errors of fact, omission and inference and shouldn’t have been published.”


Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Monday, May 10, 2010

BLAST FROM THE PAST: GSK'S JP GARNIER GRILLED ABOUT SEROXAT


Former Glaxo CEO - JP Garnier
Image: rmgsat.com

I remember when this first hit the Internet. I actually couldn't believe how the then CEO of GSK, Jean 'Paul'... sorry, Pierre, Garnier, conducted himself with James Naughtie on Radio 4's Today programme.

Garnier had agreed to the telephone interview with Naughtie and one can only assume that Garnier thought he was being interviewed to promote GSK's new anti-bird flu vaccine.

Here is the result of the final part of the interview. Garnier's demeanour somewhat changed when pressed about Seroxat.




Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

I'm Humbled: Honourary Member of Healthy Skepticism Inc





Over the weekend I received an email that has made my 4 years of blogging about Seroxat, GlaxoSmithKline and the MHRA all the more worth it.

I learned that I have just been made an honourary member of Healthy Skepticism Inc.

It's quite an honour to be included in such a group - the member list is staggering, many professionals in the field as well as journalists, some of whom have offered to review my book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal.

A quick browse through the members section this morning and I spied some great advertisements that have been uploaded.

For those that don't know, Healthy Skepticism is Australian based but has a global list of members.

It truly is an honour to be amongst such esteemed professionals.

Aropax is the brand name of Seroxat and Paxil in Australia and the advertisements that have been uploaded highlight that nothing much changes from country to country regarding the promotion.

I'd like to personally thank the Director of Healthy Skepticism Inc, Peter Mansfield, for recognising my contribution.

The aims of Healthy Skepticism Inc are:

1. Improving health by reducing harm from inappropriate, misleading or unethical marketing of health products or services, especially misleading pharmaceutical promotion.

2. Investigating and communicating about marketing practices.

3. Promoting healthy skepticism about marketing practices via advocacy, research and education.

4. Developing, supporting and evaluating initiatives to reduce harmful marketing practices, including reform of regulations and incentives.

5. Developing, implementing and evaluating educational strategies to improve health care decision making, including evaluation of drug promotion.

6. Supporting compassionate, appropriate, sustainable, evidence-based health care, provided according to need, for optimal health outcomes.

7. Providing practical opportunities to advance the aims of Healthy Skepticism Inc.


I sincerely hope I can contribute to creating further awareness over the coming years.

Not bad for a council tenant from Birmingham, eh?

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Friday, May 07, 2010

VOTING IN THE ELECTION...FOR DUMMIES



Although this blog is, in the main, a tool to rant at the way drugs are manufactured and licensed, one cannot help avoid the confusion surrounding the latest shambles from the over-populated isle of Great Britain.

Here we have a system where 'the people' are told, weeks in advance, how good [great, honest] each of the candidates running for leadership are.

Early polls suggested Lib Dem candidate, Nick Clegg, had won the hearts of the British people - He finished in third position with fewer seats than he had before the election!

The leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown, came second, his downfall being the current state of the UK one would assume.

The victor? David Cameron [Conservative]

Sounds straight forward enough.

Not so.

Cameron was the clear winner in the three horse race but...and there is always a 'but' in politics, he didn't actually win enough seats to form his own government.

Ironically, the Lib Dems may have just stopped Cameron getting the 326 seats he needed.

So what happens?

As far as I can ascertain, and I'm no expert, Cameron has to go, with begging bowl in hand, to Clegg and ask him to 'join forces' - then, and only then, can the UK have a government.

Add blue [Tory] with yellow [Lib Dem] and you get Green - Congratulations to the Green Party then!

To add confusion, many voters were turned away from polling stations because there wasn't enough staff to cope with the unexpected turnout. So, they wasn't allowed to vote.

Me - well, I never bothered. At the last local elections I strolled in to the polling station and told the clerks at the desk that I didn't receive a polling card through the post.

I was asked what my address was.

I stood standing whilst the clerk ran her finger down the list of my street.

She came to my number - apparently my dwelling was vacant - nobody was living here.

"Great," I said. "So, there is no need for me to pay rent and council tax then?"

Oh, we did have a titter at the expense of the local council.

With such a system in place, I could have lied and claimed I lived at another address - I wasn't asked to produce any form of ID.

I don't really like being told what to do by people with plums in their mouth who look down on the general public - Gordon Brown's example of what these people think about 'The People' was clearly evident last week when he was caught [on microphone] calling a woman [of The People] a bigot. This, because she dared ask him about immigration policies.

My local MP, Gisela Stuart [Labour] managed to keep her seat [after a recount] -In her defence, she has helped me with local issues though never with my gripe against the MHRA and/or GlaxoSmithKline. I think referring to Seroxat as 'Serotax' in an email to me, pretty much summed up how interested she was.

So, there is a vacancy at my place apparently. There is also one at 10 Downing Street [apparently]

Gordon Brown, he who finished 2nd, will be sleeping at number 10 tonight.

Knock knock ...

Who's there ? ...

David ...

David Who ? ...

Gordon open the fucking door and get out of my house!



It's like a scene from Monty Python.


Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.