Wikileaks : Big Pharma Insider Whistleblower Cables..

You could call it the ecosystem of corruption. But it’s also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight that’s not done, the priorities of executives, how they think they’re fulfilling their own self-interest. The way they talk about it

Let’s just walk through other industries. What about pharmaceutical companies? Yes. To be clear, we have so much unprocessed stuff, I’m not even sure about all of it. These are just things I’ve briefly looked at or that one of our people have told me about.

I’m sure everyone who’s got their finger on the pulse has by now heard of ‘wikileaks‘ . Personally I admire the courage and bravery of the ‘wikileaks’ organization. Not only have they shaken up the political elites across the globe with their recently leaked ‘diplomatic cables’ and internally classified memo’s, but it seems that they aim to release similar damning and revealing documents on the corrupt and unethical banking industry next year. And, if the rumors on the internet hold true, soon we will see just how corrupt, unethical and immoral the international pharmaceutical industry is too. (not that we don’t know already, but it’s nice to actually see the dirt rather than suspect that it exists) We are in the midst of world-wide information revolution folks and wikileaks is leading the way. I wonder how many GSK employees are partial to information that GlaxoSmithKilne would rather keep from users of their dodgy drugs. Are there any humane consciences out there amongst the GSK corporate minions? Some info on Avandia causing heart attacks perhaps? Internal memo’s on Seroxat causing suicide and horrific withdrawal maybe? Come on whistleblowers.. Ease that guilty conscience and do the right thing for your fellow human beings, blow that whistle on dirty pharma and hang them out for all the world to see…If you don’t do it, who will? … Big Pharma caught spying on the WHO December 10, 2009 By Kaitlin Mara (Intellectual Property Watch)[1] Confidential documents related to the World Health Organization Expert Working Group on innovative financing for research and development surfaced today, revealing the group’s thinking as well as pharmaceutical industry thinking about the WHO process. The documents immediately raised concern about possible undue access to the process by industry; the WHO told Intellectual Property Watch the industry group was not supposed to have the documents. The documents appear to have come from the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), and include draft reports on innovative financing mechanisms from the working group as well as an analysis by the IFPMA on the reports’ contents. They were released on Wikileaks, a website that anonymously publishes sensitive documents. ”IFPMA was not supposed to have working drafts of the expert working group in their possession and they were not given these documents,” said Precious Matsoso, director of Public Health Innovation and Intellectual Property (PHI) at the WHO, under whose auspices the expert working group falls. “It was understood by the working group that its report is intended for the director general and” WHO members, she added. Public health advocates reacted strongly to the leaked documents. “The IFPMA document confirms much of what had been feared,” that there is “a larger WHO strategy to protect the status quo, particularly as it relates to intellectual property issues,” said James Love, the director of Knowledge Ecology International, a non-profit group focussed on transparency in policymaking and which has been advocating for prize funds, a biomedical R&D treaty, and other initiatives to fund R&D. An introductory letter included with the documents addressed to the Public Health Advocacy Committee at IFPMA says “the overall result [of the working group’s report] is in line with most of the industry positions on this matter,” but says that “there is still room for them to introduce new language” as the documents date from before the final working group meeting concluded on 2 December. The Expert Working Group’s “comparative analysis of innovative financing proposals for health R&D,” available from Wikileaks here [pdf], divides aspects of drug development into six categories and then lists the ideas from “least likely” to “most likely” to work. The six categories are: fundraising, research and development capacity building in developing countries, basic research and product discovery, product development, manufacturing and distribution, and efficiencies. The leaked documents are all available from Wikileaks here. Expert Analysis The draft reports available on Wikileaks do not contain final recommendations. These will be available only in the final report, expected to be released this week (IPW, WHO, 7 December 2009). Instead, it contains an analysis of all proposals made thus far, through two calls for advice from the public, and ranks them on efficacy and feasibility. Within “fundraising,” proposals considered “least likely to work” include diverting existing resources to health, reducing tax evasion and havens, levying new charges on services or access rights. A proposal for a “Green IP” system (IPW, Inside Views, 27 June 2008) is currently “too hard to operationalise” but some elements could potentially be useful. Most likely to work include new indirect taxes, for example on internet users; voluntary private contributions, new donor funds, and taxes on pharmaceutical profits. Taxing pharmaceutical profits is estimated to generate only USD 160 million versus, for example, a potential USD 2 billion from internet taxes. On building research capacity, specific recommendations are not made, but the report says there is a lot of potential in this idea as innovative pharmaceutical development is often done in commercial ventures and, in developing countries, “commercial targets often have significant overlap with public health targets,” as local markets demand treatment for neglected diseases. On basic research, prize systems and prize funds for completed drugs, as well as a “health impact fund,” are deemed least effective, as is the idea of a biomedical R&D treaty. “Endstage prizes” and the treaty were also seen as not particularly beneficial for product development. Prizes have been advocated as a solution to R&D financing problems by several health advocacy NGOs (IPW, Public Health, 12 February 2009). Deemed more effective in incentivising research were funding for product development partnerships, grants to companies working on neglected diseases, and prizes for reaching “milestones” (such as those provided by Innocentive). Similar incentives were considered beneficial for product development. Prizes were seen as possible incentives for manufacturing and distribution, though “likely only for diagnostics” as opposed to vaccines or medicines. “Absolutely Fair Towards the Industry” The draft report, the IFPMA said, is “absolutely fair” regarding industry concerns, using “real figures” on the cost of drug and vaccines developments and containing “many references to the importance of intellectual property … to achieve further innovation.” As far as streamlining the current R&D system, which the report calls “unwieldy,” removing data exclusivity was seen as less effective compared to harmonising medicine regulatory systems and “pre-competitive platforms” for R&D. The IFPMA analysis raised two major concerns. The first relates to proposed taxes on the pharmaceutical industry, which the IFPMA document says “places the burden of the R&D … exclusively on industry and reinforces the negative image of pharmaceutical profits.” “Operationalising this proposal may lead to companies increasing prices to compensate which would be counterproductive,” it adds. Further, it is not certain to be acceptable by all partners “as the tax should be imposed on the whole pharmaceutical sector, generic included.” The second area of concern is drug-purchasing mechanism UNITAID’s proposed patent pool, and in particular its structure for royalty payments to IP owners. These payments would be determined based on the “therapeutic benefits and the affordability of royalities in particular countries,” the analysis says, adding that this “does not follow past or current patent pool structures” and emphasising that voluntary participation should be an “essential prerequisite.” A UNITAID board meeting on 14-15 December will review an expert study on the patent pool, which the UNITAID board agreed in principle to establish in July 2008. In May 2009, the board instructed the organisation’s secretariat to prepare an implementation plan. An expert team analysed a range of issues and its report, completed in November, clearly recommends the implementation of the pool, sources told Intellectual Property Watch. The IFPMA analysis also called for vigilance regarding the potential use of open source systems. NGOs: Documents “A Step Backwards” Love said the expert working group process was “a step backwards” and “evidence of a deeper problem in WHO regarding the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, and its philanthropic supporter, the Microsoft founder’s Gates Foundation.” ”This is a very disturbing set of documents,” said Sarah Rimmington, from nongovernmental organization Essential Action’s Access to Medicines Project. She added that the report “embraces the status quo and rejects the feasibility of almost every single important proposal aimed at truly solving these complicated problems.” Kaitlin Mara may be reached at Check Out This Video From Fox News : December 1, 2010 Wikileaks Targets Big Pharma Attorney Mark Lanier on why Wikileaks is going after drug companies and how it might impact future lawsuits.



  1. Pingback: Bexion Wins Cancer Grant From NCI
  2. John Graham Young

    Glaxo issued “Disclaimers” on its own product Myodil in 1951 and again 1971 . Yet ran a product liability case against itself in the UK 1991/ 1999
    Glaxo made Myodil a “Service Product” in Feb. 1971 WHAT is a SERVICE PRODUCT?.
    Who has the Disclaimers? Where are the Disclaimers?
    The MCA Had/has a Gold File you cant get in.
    Disclaimer information given out at start of English Myodil Litigation( Mentioned in the English Generic Opinion 1994) then sat on by lawyers representing claiments in England. This information was not given to Scotland for the Scottish Myodil litigation for Scottish lawyers. Can Wikileaks Get this Information? Help Please!

  3. John Graham Young

    Regarding Glaxo’s Myodil Disclaimers 1951 and 1971.See my Questions to the Scottish Information Commissioner and his Decision 34/2005.On the SIC Web site.

  4. John Graham Young

    DEATHS too recorded by the use of Myodil from 1951 on in UK.
    The misinformation surrounding Myodil is astounding. Take Hansard 13 Dec.1990. DoH Virginia Bottomley MP answering questions on Myodil stated Glaxo package inserts for Myodil on removing Myodil were on the 1980’s inserts…WRONG..the inserts advise removing on the Aug. 1971 and more so from November 1973. See Hansard!
    The reason for aspiration was it was causing Adhesions and Fibrous Exudate which is Adhesive Arachnoiditis. this is on the Package Iserts…and the wording on the inserts …”Emphasises the Importance of removing as much Myodil as possible at time of the investigation”…Nov. 1973 Glaxo PI.

  5. John Graham Young

    In the Brittish Medical Journal30th Aug.1952. Death of a Male age 23 27th Nov.1951.
    I Quote…”This is believed to be the first Myodil fitality in Britain”
    he had been injected with 3Ml of Myodil.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s