Looks like it's been a series of fairly bad days for big-Pharma megalith Merck, although you'd never know it to look at the mainstream news. In late June, a lawsuit that has been pending since 2010 was ordered "unsealed." That means, in real world terms, that the Defendant must now stop pretending to the public that it doesn't exist.
Two former Merck virologists allege that Merck defrauded the federal government when it sold millions of doses of vaccine that it knew to be of waning effectiveness. In a special kind of whistleblower lawsuit that allows private people to stand in the position of the government to stop fraud in government contracts, the former Merck scientists claim that Merck knowingly phonied up study results about effectiveness of the mumps vaccine in its famous MMR (measels, mumps, rubella) concoction, to hide the fact that the vaccine was becoming less effective as the virus mutated.
They allege that Merck, in its effectiveness studies, only used the "domesticated" version of the mumps virus--the one its vaccine was made from--and not the wild versions of the virus that people would actually be exposed to in the real world. They also allege Merck overstated effectiveness of the vaccine when it directed its scientists to "count" the viruses killed by animal antibodies that are sometimes added to samples to make it easier to find the human antibodies generated by the vaccine. So basically, Merck's effectiveness numbers included not only the viruses killed by the patient's immunity, but also those killed by a separate agent--sort of like if it poured Clorox on the samples and then claimed that its vaccine killed all the viruses the Clorox got. Finally, the virologists say that Merck fired labs whose results didn't agree with theirs, and threatened their employees with jail if they contacted FDA about the phony results. Nice.
And, only a week after the 2010 whistleblower case was unsealed, a chain or primary-care medical clinics also sued Merck, alleging that it intentionally overstated its vaccine's effectiveness to maintain a monopoly on the MMR vaccine market and make some extra money.
For its part, faced with public allegations that it phonied up test results, Merck says, "It's important to understand that none of the allegations in the complaint relate to the safety of M-M-R II and we remain confident that M-M-R II helps protect against measles, mumps and rubella as described in the labeling for the vaccine." Sort of a non-answer to the question whether it lied about the drug's effectiveness, isn't it?
So, just in the last several months, we've seen revealed that the statins people take to lower their cholesterol (so they don't have to eat right or exercise to do it) cause diabetes, muscle weakness, and memory loss. We've seen GlaxoSmithKline criminally convicted and fined $3 billion (about 10% of its profits for selling the drugs in the first place) for fraudulently marketing its antidepressants and diabetes drugs despite knowing of potentially fatal risks it wasn't disclosing. Now, Merck and its cash-cow-give-it-to-everyone-MMR. Kind of makes you wonder whether drugs are really helpful, or just very profitable.
So, how many prescriptions are YOU taking?
Read more about the lawsuits against Merck here, here, and here.
Showing posts with label Big Pharma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Pharma. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Here's to Your Health! Now, Who's Going to Jail?
So, it's being reported (here, here, and here are some examples) that Pharma-Giant GlaxoSmithKline has just pleaded guilty to criminal charges that it fraudulently marketed some of its big sellers, anti-depressants Paxil and Wellbutrin--in spite of grave risks that the drugs caused a greatly increased likelihood of suicide, and that it withheld required data showing that its diabetes drug, Avandia, caused potentially fatal heart problems.
What's now been admitted by GSK is that, despite knowing about, and covering up data that showed Paxil caused a risk of suicide 8 times greater than placebo, especially in young people, GSK marketed Paxil for off-label use--that is, use that's not approved by the FDA--in young people!
The also admit that they marketed anti-depressant Wellbutrin as a treatment for obesity, anxiety, addiction, and ADHD, although it was not approved for those uses, and posed risks that, because it was "off-label" use, weren't fully disclosed to patients.
And, just to make sure that their deadly snake oil could get maximum distribution, GSK gave perqs to doctors, like fancy-pants spa visits, hunting trips, and vacations to Jamaica to induce them to prescribe the drug, and helped to publish a journal article that misrepresented data about the drug's effectiveness.
In the case of Avandia, whose use was severely restricted in 2010 after it was linked to heart risks, the company admitted that it had failed to report data from studies that indicated Avandia could cause possibly fatal heart problems. It also admitted to making false or exaggerated claims of its safety and effectiveness, ironically touting it as good for your cardiovascular health (all except for those possible fatal heart problems, that is).
For all of this, GSK has agreed to pay about $3 BILLION in criminal and civil fines--the largest penalty in big-Pharma history. They'll probably also get the socks sued off them by families of teens who tried or succeeded in committing suicide because of their unapproved use of Paxil. Please, please, can I PLEASE be on the jury?
Who could have known that drug companies don't really care if people die, just so long as they buy their pills first? Oh gee, I don't know---maybe all of us, if we'd actually thought about it. You know, how pharma companies (whose ONLY legal purpose and obligation in life is to make the most money possible for their shareholders) might have a disincentive to actually cure a health problem, when it could make money like clockwork every month by keeping you sick, but selling you pills to "manage" your condition. I think I might have mentioned that once or twice in the past.
Notably missing from all the reports of GSK's now-admitted wrongdoing: Which marketing genius, CEO, or other muckety-muck is going to do time because of it? Oh yeah, I forgot. If you kill someone while robbing a convenience store of $38.40, you do life. If you kill people while making obscene profits for your corporate overlords, you get promoted.
What's now been admitted by GSK is that, despite knowing about, and covering up data that showed Paxil caused a risk of suicide 8 times greater than placebo, especially in young people, GSK marketed Paxil for off-label use--that is, use that's not approved by the FDA--in young people!
The also admit that they marketed anti-depressant Wellbutrin as a treatment for obesity, anxiety, addiction, and ADHD, although it was not approved for those uses, and posed risks that, because it was "off-label" use, weren't fully disclosed to patients.
And, just to make sure that their deadly snake oil could get maximum distribution, GSK gave perqs to doctors, like fancy-pants spa visits, hunting trips, and vacations to Jamaica to induce them to prescribe the drug, and helped to publish a journal article that misrepresented data about the drug's effectiveness.
In the case of Avandia, whose use was severely restricted in 2010 after it was linked to heart risks, the company admitted that it had failed to report data from studies that indicated Avandia could cause possibly fatal heart problems. It also admitted to making false or exaggerated claims of its safety and effectiveness, ironically touting it as good for your cardiovascular health (all except for those possible fatal heart problems, that is).
For all of this, GSK has agreed to pay about $3 BILLION in criminal and civil fines--the largest penalty in big-Pharma history. They'll probably also get the socks sued off them by families of teens who tried or succeeded in committing suicide because of their unapproved use of Paxil. Please, please, can I PLEASE be on the jury?
Who could have known that drug companies don't really care if people die, just so long as they buy their pills first? Oh gee, I don't know---maybe all of us, if we'd actually thought about it. You know, how pharma companies (whose ONLY legal purpose and obligation in life is to make the most money possible for their shareholders) might have a disincentive to actually cure a health problem, when it could make money like clockwork every month by keeping you sick, but selling you pills to "manage" your condition. I think I might have mentioned that once or twice in the past.
Notably missing from all the reports of GSK's now-admitted wrongdoing: Which marketing genius, CEO, or other muckety-muck is going to do time because of it? Oh yeah, I forgot. If you kill someone while robbing a convenience store of $38.40, you do life. If you kill people while making obscene profits for your corporate overlords, you get promoted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)