Christmas Cheer GSK Style! : Just The Usual Sociopathic Skullduggery and Devious Under-handedness, From The Felons Glaxo, And Their Dark Hearted Lawyers..


http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2016/12/glaxo-has-dolins-bells-ringing.html

From Fiddaman Blog:

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Glaxo Has Dolin’s Bells Ringing

GlaxoSmithKline – The company that keeps on giving.

Glaxo have been dealth yet another blow in the Paxil suicide case filed by Wendy Dolin over 5 years ago.

To date Glaxo have made endless requests that have been denied by the Judge, they have tried to get expert witnesses barred from giving evidence and even wanted to hold their own kangaroo court for one of Dolin’s witnesses, David Healy – once again they were denied.

Their latest attempt is, or was, a wonderful attempt at skullduggery. It defies belief that they would try to even go down this particular route but, I guess, they have exhausted every possible line of trickery and manipulation so one final attempt before trial commences shouldn’t really come as a surprise to those who know exactly how Glaxo and their highly paid law team, King & Spalding, like to operate.

Some time ago Glaxo were informed by the Judge that they should not try to blind the jury in this case with irrelevant documents. The jury just need to know the facts and endless documents would just confuse them. So, what did Glaxo do on the back of this request from the Judge? Well, they submitted a 170 ­page exhibit list with roughly 1,500 proposed defense trial exhibits – so, no attempt at burying the jury in paper, right? (See Judge Backs Widow’s Objection To GSK Trial Documents)

The documents are hundreds of pages long and, according to Dolin, if printed out would fill more than 20 bankers’boxes.

Wendy Dolin, through her law team, Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC, objected to the mountain of paperwork and the Judge, U.S. District Judge William T. Hart, has sustained her objections, leaving Glaxo and  King & Spalding with their tails between their legs and having to spend Christmas with the knowledge that they cannot dupe the Judge or jury in this case.

Better luck next time folks (I’m sure there will be another Paxil related suicide case to defend)

Furthermore, GSK objected to evidence being presented to the jury by Dolin, namely, correspondence between Glaxo and the FDA. The Judge denied them this and many other objections they had filed regarding Dolin’s evidence to be presented – (Boo-hoo)

The antics of Glaxo and their crispy white shirts has prompted yet another ditty from  yours truly. I hope Glaxo and King & Spalding enjoy this latest offering.



DOLIN’S JINGLE BELLS
The Judge has dealt a blow
On the mighty GSK
He has told them ‘No’
You cannot have your way.
He has barred their lists
Not let them have their way
The jury in the Paxil case
Who they’ve tried to lead astray
Oh, Dolin bells, Glaxo smells,
the Judge has blown away
Glaxo’s endless motions,
exhibit lists, horseplay.
Oh, Dolin bells, Glaxo smells,
they’ve been denied again
Let’s all laugh at their expense
and pull their lawyers chain.
Paxil is not safe
It makes you lose your mind
Suicide and birth defects
For which they have been fined.
They’ve settled out of court
With Paxil addicts too
They claim its safe and effective
But we all know that’s untrue.
Oh, Dolin bells, Glaxo smells,
the Judge has blown away
Glaxo’s endless motions,
exhibit lists, horseplay.
Oh, Dolin bells, Glaxo smells,
they’ve been denied again
Let’s all laugh at their expense
and pull their lawyers chain.
Now Dolin awaits her day
That she will have in court
Where documents presented
Will show they failed to report
the Paxil suicide link,
which they kept at bay
To me, at least, they’ve lost this case
So, let’s jingle all the way.
Oh, Jingle bells, Glaxo smells,
the Judge has blown away
Glaxo’s endless motions,
exhibit lists, horseplay.
Oh, Jingle bells, Glaxo smells,
they’ve been denied again
Let’s all laugh at their expense
and pull their lawyers chain.
Lyrics by Dee Nide and the Motions.

 

GSK Can’t Ax Out-Of-Staters From Ill. Paxil (Seroxat) Suit, Court Says


GSK Can’t Ax Out-Of-Staters From Ill. Paxil Suit, Court Says

http://www.law360.com/articles/833842/gsk-can-t-ax-out-of-staters-from-ill-paxil-suit-court-says

Law360, Boston (August 29, 2016, 5:06 PM EDT) — GlaxoSmithKline LLC had enough purposeful contacts with Illinois during clinical trials for the antidepressant Paxil for it to face claims from out-of-state residents that the company failed to warn that the drug could cause serious birth defects, a state appeals court ruled Friday.

The First District Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth Division, ruled that the standard for a showing that a defendant’s conduct was “arising from” its contacts with the state was “lenient and flexible,” giving the state courts jurisdiction over the pharmaceutical giant. The decision in an interlocutory appeal upholds the trial court’s denial of GSK’s dismissal bid.

“In light of the lenient and flexible ‘arising from’ and ‘related to’ standard, plaintiffs meet the low threshold of a prima facie showing that their claims arose from defendant GSK’s Paxil trials in Illinois,” the appeals court said.

In the suit, eight minors from six states — Illinois, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin — said that they suffered catastrophic birth defects because their mothers were taking GSK’s Paxil. The label failed to warn them of serious birth defects that the drug could cause, the plaintiffs said, and that was the result of inadequate clinical trials, 18 to 21 of which occurred in Illinois via 17 Illinois doctors. That meant that the claims arose directly out of or were related to GSK’s purposeful contacts with Illinois, the plaintiffs argued.

GSK argued that Illinois did not have jurisdiction over the out-of-state plaintiffs.

“GSK is disappointed by the court’s decision and is considering its options,” the company said in an emailed statement Tuesday.

Tor Hoerman, whose firm represented the plaintiffs, said in an emailed statement: “This decision is entirely in line with existing precedent of the Illinois Supreme Court and Appellate Court. … Drug makers who conduct inadequate or manipulated clinical trials in Illinois should not be surprised that they can be sued in Illinois for that conduct.”

In trying to have the suit dismissed as to the out-of-state plaintiffs, GSK said that its clinical trials occurred in 44 states and foreign countries, too attenuated for personal jurisdiction in one state where it’s not headquartered. Its alleged acts or omissions in Illinois were not the “but for” cause — in other words, GSK said, the plaintiffs couldn’t show that the harm would not have occurred but for what GSK did in Illinois.

In addition, GSK argued, the plaintiffs weren’t study subjects there, and the out-of-state plaintiffs didn’t take Paxil or suffer injuries in Illinois.

The children and their mothers argued that GSK had meaningful contacts with Illinois through its clinical trials of Paxil, during which they said it failed to track 18 pregnancies, one of which resulted in a heart defect. According to Friday’s decision, GSK employs 16,323 people in the U.S., including 217 who reside in Illinois, and from 2000 to 2006, GSK had between 79 and 121 employees marketing Paxil in Illinois.

They did not have to prove that any act was committed in Illinois, but just make a prima facie showing, the defendants said.

In a ruling Friday, the appeals court sided with the plaintiffs.

“The quality of defendant GSK’s relationship with Illinois can hardly be characterized as random, attenuated or the like; the contacts with Illinois, over the course of two decades, were purposeful and directed,” the appeals court ruled.

The plaintiffs, and the judges, used some of GSK’s own statements to show that the case could continue. In a declaration, GSK said that the principal Paxil investigators had “little or no input into or control over the study design protocol or analysis of the aggregate data collected from all study sites.”

“As plaintiffs argue, the word ‘little’ invites the inference that the physicians had some degree of input into, and control over, the clinical trials, or else the word would have been omitted,” the appeals court said. Absent further guidance in the record, we ‘resolve in favor of the plaintiff any conflicts in the pleadings and affidavits.’”

Judges Robert E. Gordon, Bertina E. Lampkin and Eileen O’Neill Burke sat on the panel for the First District.

GlaxoSmithKline is represented by Dentons.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ken Brennan of TorHoerman Law LLC.

The case is M.M., a minor, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC et al., case number 1-15-1909, in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

–Editing by Mark Lebetkin.

Update: This story has been updated to include a comment from GSK.

Seroxat/Paxil and Violence…


I developed suicidal/aggressive/ tendencies when I was on Seroxat (Paxil) and I also became severely agitated from akathisa (another horrible Seroxat side effect)- and there have been multitudes of similar experiences of Seroxat horror stories documented for over two decades now. Seroxat can literally push you over the edge, this drug should have been banned a long time ago, or at the very least severely restricted for new users… but GSK can’t let anything get in the way of their profit margins can they? For them profit is the bottom line. Ethics and human life are merely inconveniences…

This recently uploaded video of David Carmichael’s experience of Paxil should serve as a warning of just how dangerous drugs like Seroxat can be.

Courtney Dunkin… Prescribed Paxil (Seroxat/Aropax/Paroxetine) When She Was 14…


Interesting case of another Paxil (Seroxat) induced homicide. How many vulnerable teens (and young people) were prescribed Paxil and then subsequently went on to commit Paxil induced crimes, and how many lost their lives?

Does GSK keep track?…


https://ssristories.org/15-year-old-girl-kills-grandmother-13-years-ago-life-sentence/

Ask TX Governor to pardon Courtney Dunkin, 15 y.o. convicted as adult while taking Paxil.

Courtney Dunkin was a mere 15 years old when she fatally shot her adopted mother, Betty Dunkin, while she was under the influence, and suffering from involuntary intoxication, due to the harmful anti-depressant Paxil (Paroxetine).  She was tried as an adult and wrongfully sentenced, due to lack of evidence, to Life in prison in the TX. Dept. of Criminal Justice.

It wouldn’t be until 2003 when the evidence she needed to prove her innocence would arise.  Courtney had been hospitalized in 1994 for depression and prescribed the drug Paxil, which had unknown side effects at that time.  A later study conducted by the FDA in 2003 proved that Paxil must NEVER be prescribed to children under the age of 18, as it was proven to increase the risk of suicidal ideation and behavior in children, as well as many other dangerous/harmful side-effects. This drug, which was supposed to save Courtney’s life as it helped her past fragile teenage years, became the main cause of destroying her life.  By 2003 it would be far too late to bring this evidence to the Court in Courtney’s defense.

After the FDA declared their study about the medicine which would prove that Courtney was not responsible for her own actions nor in a lucid state of mind, she faced another harsh twist in the story of her life: her appeals had been exhausted and only the trial officials (Judge, Sherriff, District Attorney, and State Governor) can grant her relief regarding this new evidence.

Courtney was a typical teenager who was living in a state of emotional disturbance because of a troubled family life.  He father was an alcoholic and having been abandoned by her mother, she was adopted by her paternal grandparents, John and Betty Dunkin, at the age of 5.  Then shortly afterwards, at the age of 11, she suffered the loss of her grandfather – the only father she had ever known – to cancer, and her life shattered.

In a downward spiral of suicidal despair, she shot her mother, and then sought to run away and commit suicide.  Never once did she realize that the very medication she was taking is what caused those destructive thoughts.

Upon her arrest she was lost and confused with no guardian, no parental guidance, nor any knowledge of her rights or the juvenile legal system.  Police and investigators used this naiveté to their advantage despite Courtney’s pleas that she didn’t know why she had done what she did and that she was obviously mentally disturbed and suicidal.  Instead they painted a picture of her as a remorseless, cold-hearted monster and created a motive that they knew would garner a conviction.  Instead of helping a mentally ill little girl, they only served to hurt her further.

Heartbroken and remorseful for her actions as a child and, 20 yrs. later, armed with the knowledge of the harmful side-effects of the medication she was taking, Courtney has managed to make sense of how such a horrible tragedy could occur.  Courtney doesn’t want the dangerous effects of this drug to go un-noticed or for any other children to be subjected to the awful experiences she has.

Courtney’s mental state and the influence of this poisonous drug should be brought to the attention of the Courts.  Had this evidence been available during her trial in 1995, the outcome would likely have been very different.  Please sign her petition today, ask friends, family, co-workers to sign also to help Courtney get the attention she needs from officials to grant her the freedom and second chance that she deserves.

Mailing Address
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Mailing Address
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
P. O. Box 13401
Austin, Texas 78711-3401
Email: bpp-pio@tdcj.texas.gov


https://ssristories.org/15-year-old-girl-kills-grandmother-13-years-ago-life-sentence/

Grapevine woman: Emotional distress caused her to kill grandmother — (Star-Telegram)

Original article no longer available

Star-Telegram

May 26, 2008

By DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR., Star-Telegram Staff Writer

S-T/KELLEY CHINN

Courtney Dunkin, 29, speaks to a Star-Telegram reporter at the Hobby Unit in Marlin. She is serving a life sentence for killing her grandmother in 1994 when she was 15.

MARLIN — The young woman sat talking in a soft voice, her long, dark brown hair on her shoulders at the prison unit where she’s serving a life sentence. Tears came as Courtney Dunkin talked about her grandmother — the 63-year-old woman Dunkin was convicted of fatally shooting in the head in 1994 at their home in Grapevine.

She’s been in custody for 14 years. She will be eligible for parole on May 26, 2034.

“I’d give anything to turn back time,” she said. “I just wish it hadn’t happened.”

Dunkin leaned forward as she held the telephone tighter in the interview room where glass separates visitors and inmates.

“I wasn’t angry at her,” she said. “I don’t know why it happened.”

Of the 1,293 female inmates at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Hobby Unit, Dunkin is one of the youngest killers. She was 15 when she shot the woman who raised her and whom she called Mom. She’s now 29 and spoke out for the first time one recent morning about the events leading up to the killing of Betty Dunkin. She declined to talk about details of the slaying.

Childhood

Courtney Dunkin went to live with her paternal grandparents, John and Betty Dunkin, when she was 5. Her parents had divorced; her father was an alcoholic, and relatives didn’t talk about her mother.

Shortly after moving to Grapevine, she began attending Dove Elementary and was diagnosed with attention-deficit (hyperactivity) disorder. School friends would occasionally spend the night, but she spent many hours with her grandfather, who owned a construction company and had a flexible schedule allowing time for her. Her grandmother worked days at General Motors and prepared dinner when she got home.

In 1989, John Dunkin died of cancer, leaving Courtney Dunkin, then 11, shattered.

“I knew he was sick, but no one told me he might die,” she said. “I didn’t have anyone to talk to about it. I would try to talk to Mom about it, but she would just cry.”

Teenage problems

As her grief lingered, Courtney Dunkin entered Grapevine Middle School. She started to wear black clothing and decorated her room in black. Troubles — sassing, tardiness and detention — at school started to mount. Arguments with her grandmother increased, and Courtney Dunkin became known to police.

“It seems that when we would be questioning some suspects at an apartment or at a house, there was Courtney,” recently retired Grapevine police Detective Bob Murphy said. “We got to know her name.”

Betty Dunkin’s answer to her granddaughter’s problems was counseling: at school, at hospitals and with family therapists, Courtney Dunkin said. Betty Dunkin also joined ToughLove, a support group that helps parents with out-of-control children.

About that time, Courtney Dunkin said, she was prescribed Paxil, an antidepressant on which she would intentionally overdose on a few occasions. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration began requiring its strongest label warning for Paxil and other antidepressants because they increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children.

Dunkin says she was suicidal at the time of her grandmother’s death and irrational because of the medication and the death of her grandfather.

Before the shooting

Police reports indicate that the teen ran away several times in the weeks before the shooting; Dunkin says it was only once.

“I’d miss my curfew, and Mom called the police,” Dunkin said. “Many times I’d be home in an hour, but police still listed me as a runaway.”

Two months before the slaying, Dunkin was arrested for theft after stealing jewelry from her grandmother, she said. She was sentenced to a year’s probation. A few weeks later, authorities fitted her with an ankle monitor after she was driving illegally and became involved in a traffic accident.

The shooting

On the night of May 26, 1994, Dunkin and Jamie Hatfield, 16, who was her best friend, talked on the telephone about killing Hatfield’s boyfriend, police said.

But the focus shifted to Dunkin’s grandmother and how they could get her car so they could run away, according to court records. Dunkin got off the phone and took two gas credit cards and all the money in her grandmother’s purse. Then she took a key to her grandfather’s gun case, removed a .38-caliber pistol and took it to her room.

Dunkin phoned Hatfield, who suggested chopping up pills and putting them in her grandmother’s food so she would go to sleep and they could take the car.

Dunkin hung up and walked into her grandmother’s bedroom, according to court records.

She gave this statement to Murphy: “I hid the gun behind my back and walked into my mom’s room, and we talked for a minute, and I shot her. When I shot the gun, I saw sparks, and it was so loud that my ears were ringing, and I felt deaf. The smell was really bad and followed me into the car, and it made me sick.”

Dunkin spent the rest of the night at Hatfield’s home, but the next morning Hatfield’s mother sensed that something was wrong, police said.The three of them went to the Dunkin home and found the body, police said. The girls were arrested hours later.

“It all happened so fast,” Courtney Dunkin said of the shooting. “I didn’t realize what I’d done. They [police] wanted a motive, and I didn’t know why. I didn’t want to tell them that I was suicidal.”

After the slaying

Hatfield was convicted of aggravated robbery in July 1996 and sentenced to five years in prison. She was released July 16, 1999, according to prison records.

She has also been involved in a prison program for at-risk kids who spend a day at the prison in hopes that they will be discouraged from crime.

Old school friends still visit Dunkin; her father hasn’t been there in years. Her mother, whom she almost never saw as a child, stopped writing to her a few years ago when Dunkin learned that she had half-siblings and wanted to get in touch with them.

For parents with troubled children, Dunkin offered one bit of advice.

“Even if they roll their eyes, communicate with them,” she said. “Just don’t listen and then walk away. Talk to them.”
DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR. 817-685-3822  ramirez@star-telegram.com

How did GSK obtain a declination?


Bill Coffin | November 22, 2016

Back in September, our old compliance friend GlaxoSmithKline plc (GSK) settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission for violating various provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, namely for improper payments, gifts, and other bribes made by GSK subsidiaries in China to Chinese officials to boost sales in that country. Back in 2013, GSK got itself into trouble for a wide-ranging bribery scheme in China, which included the involvement of top-level country managers down to individual sales personnel. The bribery schemes were numerous, including direct bribe payments to all healthcare personnel (HCPs) who could be influenced to prescribe the company’s pharmaceutical products, indirect payments to hospital administrators who could then dole out the money, excessive and over the top gifts, travel and entertainment, and very large payments for speaking events. According to the SEC, the corruption within GSK’s China unit was pervasive, with bribes actually written into the sales plan for the company.

For this, the SEC fined GSK $20 million and declined to prosecute, citing GSK’s cooperation with the Commission during its investigation and global remedial actions taken by GSK to eliminate payments to doctors, improve risk assessment, and improve third-party oversight. This declination might have made more sense with a different company. But this is GlaxoSmithKline here, and this was hardly the company’s first brush with the law, nor its most severe.

Corporate integrity agreement. In July 2012, GSK pled guilty and paid $3 billion to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety data and for false price-reporting practices in what the Justice Department at the time called the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history and the largest payment ever by a drug company for legal violations.

You would think that any company that has paid $3 billion in fines and penalties for fraudulent actions would take all steps possible not to engage in bribery and corruption. Indeed, as part of that settlement, GSK agreed to a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) that applied not only to the specific pharmaceutical regulations that GSK violated but all of GSK’s compliance obligations, including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

In addition to requiring a full and complete compliance program, the CIA specified that the company would have a compliance committee, inclusive of the compliance officer and other members of senior management, whose job was to oversee full implementation of the CIA and all compliance functions at the company. These additional functions required deputy compliance officers for each commercial business unit, integrity champions within each business unit, management accountability, and certifications from each business unit. Training of GSK employees was also specified. Further, there was detail down to specifically state that all compliance obligations applied to “contractors, sub-contractors, agents, and other persons (including, but not limited to, third-party vendors).” So, while GSK may have separate FCPA liabilities to be investigated by the Justice Department; it may be more of an issue that the company could be in violation of its CIA.

“Transparency is what enables the public to understand why particular results are reached in particular cases and helps to reduce any incorrect perception that our enforcement decisions may be unreasoned or inconsistent.”

Leslie Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General

Chinese criminal conviction. But that is not all. In September 2014, barely two years after its historic DoJ settlement, GSK was convicted in a secret trial in a court in the Hunan province of China for bribery and corruption related to its Chinese business unit. The amount of the fine was approximately $490 million, roughly equal to the 3 billion Rmb that Chinese investigators alleged that GSK had paid in bribes. Five GSK senior executives from this China business unit were also convicted. Mark Reilly, the former head of GSK in China, was sentenced to prison for three years with a four-year suspension. He was deported and reportedly has left the company. Zhang Guowei, GSK China’s former human resources director, was sentenced to three years in prison with a three-year suspension. Liang Hong, GSK’s former China unit vice president and operations manager, was sentenced to two years in prison with a three-year suspension. Zhao Hongyan, GSK China’s former legal-affairs director, was sentenced to two years in prison with a two-year suspension. Finally, Huang Huang, the GSK China business-development manager, was sentenced to three years in prison with a four-year suspension.

There is even more. The New York Times recently ran a front-page story about GSK and China, focusing not so much on the bribery schemes or individuals, but on GSK’s inept response to whistleblowers’ allegations of bribery and corruption in the company’s Chinese business unit. “The Glaxo case was fueled by missed clues, poor communication, and a willful avoidance of the facts,” the Times wrote. “For more than a year the drug maker brushed aside repeated warnings from a whistleblower about systemic fraud and corruption in its China operations.

It turned out that the company had received substantive information concerning the bribery schemes by way of e-mail, written in excellent English about the company’s operations in China. Yet the GSK response was to try “another common gambit in China: bribing officials” who were doing the investigating. The company “set up a special ‘crisis management’ team in China and began offering money and gifts to regulators.”

In the midst of this corruption investigation crisis, the company received a video of its country manager, Mark Reilly, having sex with a Chinese woman. An e-mail alleged that a Chinese company, seeking to corruptly gain business favors with Reilly and seek additional business with GSK China, provided the woman. GSK officials in London thought this sex tape video was the work of the same person who was the whistleblower for the corruption allegations against the company and set out to discover the identity of the corruption whistleblower, as well as the sex tape whistleblower. Rather amazingly, GSK’s internal investigation turned up no evidence of bribery in its Chinese business unit, in spite of the detailed information provided by the whistleblower for the corruption allegations. At some point the whistleblower for the corruption allegations provided the same information to Chinese authorities, and this led to arrests of GSK China personnel in late June and July 2013.

The declination.

The DoJ’s declination order did not reference the Chinese trial, penalty, or investigation and seemed to sidestep GSK’s still-existing CIA for their prior violations and all of the facts developed in the Chinese governmental investigation of GSK. Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell has consistently communicated that the Justice Department is committed to the international fight against corruption, often leading the way. The Department has been training prosecutors from other nations in the techniques of investigating corruption and enforcement of anti-bribery laws.

Moreover, with this increase in the international fight against bribery and corruption, it would seem appropriate that a company not be double penalized by paying a penalty for the same offenses in multiple countries. However, if the Justice Department were providing such credit to GSK, it would seem appropriate that such information be communicated to heighten the transparency around the entire process. From the outside, it does not appear that GSK met at least two of the four prongs required under the FCPA Pilot Program. GSK did not self-disclose the violations of its Chinese business unit and did not cooperate with the authorities. While there were certainly some remedial steps taken by the company in China, they have not been detailed in any manner.

Whatever the reason for the declination, it would have been much better if the Justice Department had been more transparent in their decision-making calculus. Indeed, in recent remarks at the George Washington University School of Law, Caldwell spoke about the importance of transparency in the process. She said, “Transparency is what enables the public to understand why particular results are reached in particular cases and helps to reduce any incorrect perception that our enforcement decisions may be unreasoned or inconsistent.  Transparency also informs corporate actors and their advisers what conduct will result in what penalties and what sort of credit they can receive for self-disclosure and cooperation with an investigation.”

Just how GSK was able to get a complete pass from the Justice Department may well remain a mystery, and such mysteries do no one any good.

What’s Glaxo’s Andrew Witty’s Definition Of ‘Normal Behavior’?


AW.png


“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”

Upton Sinclair


A few days ago, I posted a link online to a publicly available document. This document is basically a legal writ (lawsuit/complaint), taken by Peter Humphrey, against the drug company GlaxoSmithKline.(see here)

The gist of Peter’s story with Glaxo has already been discussed in some previous posts, by Bob Fiddaman, on his Seroxat Sufferers Blog. Myself and Bob have been writing about the Seroxat scandal (and GSK’s nefarious conduct) for many years and we know each other quite well, so I am sure he won’t mind me using a summary from his posts, in order to explain some context for my own post on this.

Peter’s story of his experiences with Glaxo (documented in his legal complaint) is both intriguing and harrowing. It reads like something from John Le Carre’s ‘Constant Gardener’. The writ is fascinating, even just in terms of the depth of Glaxo’s dodgy conduct described, and the allegations alone are also shocking (but probably unsurprising for many  Glaxo- observers) however, the most interesting part of his legal complaint (in regards to Glaxo’s conduct)- for me -is contained the following section:

Under the heading (on page 25) :

GSK Lies About Knowledge of Corruption and Refuses to Admit Why It Hired Plaintiffs

The Complaint states-

“…Witty argued, nonsensically, that the previous whistle-blower allegations were “quite different” from the more recent charges, saying, “they are two completely different sets of issues, we fully investigated the first and, of course, this has now surfaced in the last couple of weeks.”

This was a lie,

since “what surfaced” in the PSB investigation and raids of GSK offices in July was precisely the illegal activity that the whistleblower had documented and threatened to reveal in January…”

gsk-lies-1gsk-lies-2


What I find fascinating about all of this is, whenever GSK get embroiled in a scandal- the company’s PR machine seems to think that the public will swallow any crap that they spew out in regards to their conduct. They don’t seem to realize that they have absolutely no credibility with the general pubic. They are proven liars, deceivers, felons, and fraudsters. The company has been proven time and time again to be nothing but utterly corrupt to the core.

So why should we believe anything they say?

In short, we shouldn’t.

If GSK was a living human individual, we would likely consider them to be a compulsive liar, a sociopath, and an utterly reprehensible person. For the amount of damage (and death) that they have caused over the past few decades, we’d lock them up for life and throw away the key. However GSK isn’t a human individual, it’s a corporate entity made up from a hundred thousand individuals with one man at the helm- the CEO- Andrew Witty.

Witty is the boss at GSK, therefore surely he is responsible for the GSK China  bribery crisis because it happened under his watch? The document above seems to suggest that Witty (and indeed GSK) knew much more about the corruption in China, than has been admitted publicly, when it was first exposed.

It’s classic GSK behavior to deny and deflect the truth whenever a scandal occurs about the company. They have proven time and time again to be utterly untrustworthy so why would GSK’s China Bribe scandal be any different? or more to the point-why would GSK’s behavior be any different?..

In an interview with Evan Davis of the BBC, some months ago, Andrew Witty avoided Evan’s questions about GSK’s bribery network in China. Evan asked Mr Witty, in the China case, “was that normal behavior”?

(see clip here)

Evan Davis:

-“But you’re saying there are bad apples, and it goes wrong. Is that right, or is it – for example, in the China case. Was it that there was a bad apple and it went wrong, or was it that that was normal behaviour in certain markets, and it just got called out in that particular case?”

Andrew Witty:

-“For obvious reasons, I’m not going to get into all the details of that.”


It’s interesting that Witty chose not to discuss if GSK’s massive bribery scandal in China was normal behavior?

GSK’s China bribe scandal is a can of worms that Witty could never publicly delve into. There’s too much at stake for him, and for Glaxo to ever discuss their abhorrent behavior in China, however that might all change soon…

Glaxo’s conduct in China is shocking, and utterly disgraceful, and it’s a can of worms that’s just about to spill open with the release of details in Peter Humphrey’s recent writ against them.

In Peter Humphrey’s complaint it is alleged:

 – Between 2010-2013 GSK spent nearly $225 million on planning and travel services. Approx 44% of the sampled invoices were inflated and approximately 12% were for events that did not occur.

 – GSK set up a special “crisis management” team in order to bribe Chinese regulators with money and gifts. A GSK executive attempted to bribe a Chinese investigator with an IPad and a lavish dinner. All bribes were approved by the head of Chinese operations, Mark Reilly.


 – GSK planned to suppress evidence of its illegal bribery activities.


 – As far back as 2008, GSK China deliberately falsified its books and records in order to conceal its illegal practices in China. These included, bribery and promotion of drugs for purposes that have not been approved by the Chinese authorities.


 – GSK paid a patient RMB 50,000, who nearly died after being given Lamictal off-label. Despite having knowledge of Lamictal causing near death in this patient, GSK still told its reps to promote the use of Lamictal for off-label purposes.


 – GSK targeted ‘persuasive doctors’ in attempts to influence purchasing decisions at their hospitals. GSK are to said to have forged a connection with these doctors by taking them to expensive lunches and dinners and also giving them gifts and cash.


 – GSK paid between 500 and 1,000 doctors to go on an all-expenses paid holiday to locations such as Brazil, India, Israel, Greece, Japan and Hungary. GSK covered all costs, including cash to cover meals and sight-seeing excursions. These were disguised by GSK as “Conference trips.”


 – Head of Chinese operations, Mark Reilly, received a bribe in the form of ‘sexual relations’ in return for passing business on to China Comfort Travel, a travel agency who organised ‘conference sevices’ for GSK.


 – GSK paid doctors based on their prescription numbers.


 – GSK’s senior legal counsel, Jennifer Huang, asked private investigator, Peter Humphrey, to investigate the Public Security Bureau and to prepare an analysis of the Chinese political regime. Huang told Humphrey that she wanted to find out who’s who regarding the team who were investigating GSK.


 – Humphrey became concerned that GSK were trying to obstruct the investigation and declined to investigate state secrets.


 – Humphrey was also asked, by GSK, to look into the Ministry of Public Security, the Economic Crimes Investigation Department regarding the relationship between them and  the Public Security Bureau. Humphrey, once again, declined.


 – Head of Chinese operations, Mark Reilly, told Humphrey that the alleged whistleblower, Vivian Shi was “coming after him.” (Humphrey).  Reilly then fled China the following day.


 – GSK China told its employees to “destroy all non-compliant promotional materials and gifts.” They also implemented a new email system and deleted emails that were more than a year old. They claimed this was to “reduce unnecessarily legal costs.”…


Humphrey’s complaint against Glaxo is not just important in terms of how it further exposes Glaxo as a truly despicable, unethical, corrupt organization, but it must also be personally important for Peter too. Glaxo’s treatment of Peter and his wife throughout this whole debacle is extremely disturbing and sinister. (read the complaint here and see just how chilling Glaxo’s behavior is towards those who they consider utterly dispensable).

It’s obvious to me that Peter and his wife Yu Yingzeng were scapegoated by Glaxo. GSK’s top man in China Mark Reilly ran the bribery network, he was found guilty by the Chinese, but he got off, and he was sent back to the UK. Peter and Yu were imprisoned instead of Reilly. Their treatment in prison is deplorable, and their treatment by Glaxo, previous to their incarnation, during, and after has been equally bad.

I can relate to mistreatment from Glaxo, unfortunately I was prescribed one of their dangerous shoddy drugs (Seroxat), and if that horrific scandal is anything to go by, we should not be surprised at the depths that this horrible company will stoop in its pursuit of profits at the expense of human life…

From the New York Times:

“…The complaint, filed at the United States District Court in Philadelphia and made public on Wednesday, was brought by Peter Humphrey, who is British, and Yu Yingzeng, his wife, who is American.

The couple were detained in 2013 and found guilty by a Chinese court in 2014 after being asked by Glaxo to investigate a whistle-blower within the pharmaceuticals group.

They were convicted of illegally obtaining private records of Chinese citizens.

The couple said that Glaxo misled them by stating that the whistle-blower’s accusations of widespread corruption within the company were false. The company was fined a record 3 billion renminbi (nearly $500 million) in 2014 for paying bribes to doctors to use its drugs.”


It will be interesting to see how Peter Humphrey’s complaint against Glaxo progresses, and it will be even more interesting to see if Andrew Witty will be called forth as a witness if a trial occurs.

Perhaps the judge will ask Witty, what his definition of normal behavior is…

I guess we will have to wait and see.

However, in the meantime, I would like to ask Andrew Witty does he consider the following things ‘normal behavior’?

Was the off-label promotion of Seroxat/Paxil to teens (based on a bogus study-329) ‘normal behavior’ for Glaxo? (see here)

Is the production of contaminated products at Glaxo’s facilities considered ‘normal behavior’? (see here,  and here)

(For more examples of ‘normal’ Glaxo behavior see the hundreds upon hundreds of posts that I have posted about Glaxo on this blog for the past ten years- see the archives here)

(Rolling Stones Star) Ronnie Wood’s Daughter- Leah Woods- Calls For Reform Of The MHRA…


LEAH WOOD

For Reform MHRA

Celebrity Involvement

Model Leah Wood is campaigning for a radical shake-up of the health system to reduce the influence of giant pharmaceutical companies.

Leah, the daughter of Rolling Stones guitarist Ronnie Wood, believes the public has become too dependent on medication prescribed by doctors.

“People need knowledge to judge for themselves what is out there rather than getting prescribed pills for everything,” says the 38-year-old mother of two, who is an organic lifestyle advocate.

 “Pharmaceutical companies have too much power and we have become used to medication instead of seeing what else is out there.”

Leah is backing a petition launched by the pressure group, the National Health Federation, to restructure the MHRA, claiming it is a ‘puppet’ of the pharmaceutical industry.

The call comes in the week the influential Academy of Medical Royal Colleges warned that doctors were giving too many patient test and drugs they don’t need while the British Medical Association called for a dedicated NHS helpline and website where people hooked on prescription drugs can get advice.

“There should be more choice available and we should be able to use alternative ways of healing ourselves providing they are safe,” adds Leah. “People should have the freedom to try other avenues when they are ill.

“It is clear that some of these medicines are not vital and we don’t need our bodies clogged up with chemicals. But the big pharmaceutical companies have too much influence and other remedies are overlooked or banned. I am really concerned that there is a level playing field so everything can be considered.”

Leah’s grandmother Rachel Karslake was diagnosed with breast cancer but used an organic lifestyle to combat the condition. Her mum Jo, an organic pioneer who split from the Rolling Stone seven years ago, revitalized her diet by preparing fresh organic food.

“The doctors gave Nan all these treatments and made her do chemotherapy but she wasn’t getting any better so she decided to take matters into her own hands. She took homeopathic treatments and supplements and my mum and Auntie prepared organic food for her,” says Leah, a fashion model and artist. “We are convinced it helped her.

“Had she been eating badly then I’m sure the cancer would have had little trouble going round her body.”

Rachel died last year, aged 81, from kidney failure.

Leah, who lives in north London with her financier husband Jack McDonald and children Maggie, seven, and Otis, four, adds that the government should also provide more health and dietary information for the public.

“Not enough people know what is inside their food or even if they need the medicines prescribed by doctors,” she says. “We need to look after ourselves as much as possible to prevent illness not to rely on doctors once we get ill.

“It is time there was more knowledge out there and for the public to take a bigger interest in their own health”

She believes in maintaining a healthy lifestyle and not relying on conventional medicines if healthier alternatives are available. “I was brought up with alternative medicines and homeopathy and have been taught the importance of eating well. You are what you eat. I try and stay healthy. I go to the gym, I run, I take vitamins. You can often heal yourself through diet and lifestyle and I think it is important not to overmedicate.

‘I use homeopathy and alternative remedies a lot with my kids. There are so many alternatives but people do not realise they are available because the pharmaceutical message is so strong.”

She is urging the public to sign a petition to reform the MHRA and promote alternative therapies.

Leah adds that her father is still fighting fit and enjoying the demands of parenthood since is third wife, Sally Humphreys, 38, gave birth to twins Gracie Jane and Alice Rose in May.

Ronnie also has son Jesse Wood, with his first wife and former model, Krissy Wood, daughter Leah and son Tyrone from his second marriage, to Jo, and Jamie, Jo Wood’s son from a previous marriage, whom he adopted.

“It’s bizarre, I have so many nieces and nephews and now I have baby sisters and I’m almost 40 years older than them,” she laughs.

“I haven’t babysat yet but I’ve been around and I’ve cuddled them and tried to keep both of them quiet at the same time. They are very, very sweet.

‘Dad is superfit, but he has to be with the two new babies. There’s no great secret, as a family we always laugh and try to be happy. Even though things can be tough, my upbringing was actually quite stable.’

As well as being a busy mum, Leah is also a designing a baby clothing range and is working on artistic projects.

Mail Online-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3983100/How-Ronnie-Wood-s-drink-drug-addled-past-not-affected-health-model-daughter-Leah-says-s-alternative-medicines.html