GlaxoSmithKline is fined record $3bn in US
BMJ 2012; 345 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4568 (Published 03 July 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e4568All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I am not a campaigner against the pharmaceutical industry and support pharmaceutical innovation and development. However I am shocked by the 212 exhibits now available for all to see following the whistleblower lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, for which the company has pled guilty and agreed to pay $3bn in penalties for unlawful promotion of prescription drugs and failure to report safety data (1). The Chairman of GSK has admitted ‘regret’ but has offered no apology.
Let us consider TRUTH and the pharmaceutical industry. Here we must mull over: ‘misleading’ journal articles; the deliberate concealment of negative trial results; the illegal promotion of off-label uses of drugs; and the culture of promotion that makes profit the prime consideration.
Now let us consider TRANSPARENCY. Here we need to ask: Do the public have open access to hospitality registers and where is the General Medical Council support of this? Do the public know how entangled our continuing medical education is with the pharmaceutical Industry? Can we be reassured by Richard Thompson chair of the Ethical Standards in Health and Life Sciences Group given their recent controversial guideline to ‘promote collaboration between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry’? (2) Can we agree with them that the pharmaceutical industry plays a ‘valid and important role in the provision of medical education’? Are we reassured by Stephen Whitehead, Chief Executive of Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry that the ‘Drug industry takes great care to be a responsible healthcare partner’? (3) And finally are our leading medical journals transparent when it comes to reprint sales that are so strongly associated with pharmaceutical funding? (4)
I would urge readers to look at the 212 exhibits presented for this law-suit and to ask a final question: does our continuing medical education need the pharmaceutical industry?
(1) BMJ2012;345:e4568 GlaxoSmithKline is fined record $3bn in US. Published 3 July 2012
(2) BMJ2012;344:e3371 Guidance on collaboration with drug industry Towards greater transparency in the life sciences. Published 15 May 2012
(3) BMJ2011;343:d6695 Drug industry takes great care to be responsible healthcare partner Published 26 October 2011
(4) Medical journals: a gaggle of golden geese Blog by Richard Smith. 3 July 2012. by BMJ Group
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir Andrew Witty, CEO of GlaxoSmithKline, is lead non-executive board member of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (British Government). Of course, he is the heir to the legacy of years of abuse, but it is presumably a legacy he voluntarily took on.
Competing interests: Autistic son
GlaxoSK, some readers might recall, was born through merger of various entities, some American, some British. Mr Burroughs and Mr Wellcome must be spinning in their graves at the present state of medicine manufacture and promotion.
Like banks, drug manufacturers are getting too big and too passionate about acquiring (filthy) lucre.
Perhaps, the Wellcome Trust should be handed back the present-day value of its ancestral share and it could then concentrate on a narrow field of research, using the public service ideals of Messrs B and W.
This is a voice in the wilderness. Most of the readers are surely unaware of B and W.
JK Anand
Competing interests: No competing interests
Phillips & Cohen’s qui tam case, filed in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2003 is a major component of GlaxoSmithKline settlement announced. The court consolidated this case with another filed in Colorado. The two cases settled for $1.017 billion out of the total settlement.
More than 200 exhibits filed as part of the evidence in the whistleblower lawsuit are avalaible at
http://www.glaxowhistleblowers.com/lawsuit/
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: GlaxoSmithKline is fined record $3bn in US
When looking at this picture as a whole, we realize that Big Pharma has learnt how to do business and to stimulate corruption as well as the financial market.
Societal changes in laws about pharmaceutical&device industries, plus medical behaviour and ethical attitudes are urgently needed.
Competing interests: No competing interests