Post has been suspended following new information -it will be amended shortly.. and posted again.
Post has been suspended following new information -it will be amended shortly.. and posted again.
It seems to be that GSK just replace one sociopath with another..
I can just imagine the interview process for CEO…
I bet it’s something like a tick the boxes ‘sociopath’ checklist for the selected candidates…
Something like this perhaps?…
Britain’s biggest drugs-maker, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), has been told to ignore internal candidates in its search for a new boss as shareholders intensify demands for a radical overhaul of the company.
Speaking exclusively to Sky News, Neil Woodford, the City’ s best-known fund manager, said that GSK needed “a fresh pair of eyes” to replace Sir Andrew Witty, who will step down next year.
“I have a strong preference for an external candidate,” the head of investments at Woodford Investment Management said on Thursday.
Mr Woodford’s demands will put pressure on Sir Philip Hampton, GSK’s new chairman, to appoint an executive from elsewhere in the pharmaceuticals industry to succeed Sir Andrew.
That would come as a blow to possible internal candidates such as Emma Walmsley, who runs GSK’s consumer products division, and Abbas Hussain, president of its global pharmaceuticals unit.
Sky News revealed last autumn that Mr Woodford was seeking a break-up of the £69bn company, which owns brands such as Nicorette and Horlicks.
He believes the group would be far more valuable if it separated its HIV business ViiV, its consumer healthcare division and Stiefel, its dermatology division, from its core medicines and vaccines arm.
GSK said on Thursday that Sir Andrew would step down at the end of March 2017, with a formal recruitment process now underway.
The City has grown frustrated at GSK’s lacklustre share price performance, with the stock down about 10% over the last 12 months as investors wait to see whether a pipeline of promising new products will deliver.
Under Sir Andrew, its chief executive since 2008, GSK has signalled a shift away from highly priced prescription drugs in favour of vaccines and consumer products.
Analysts at Deutsche Bank said the announcement about Sir Andrew’s retirement was unlikely to signal material strategic changes at GSK.
GlaxoSmithKline CEO Andrew Witty to Retire in March 2017
March 17, 2016 — 7:12 AM GMT
Updated on March 17, 2016 — 12:10 PM GMT
Board will search for CEO candidate inside, outside drugmaker
Chairman Hampton also plans `board refreshment’ this year
GlaxoSmithKline Plc Chairman Phil Hampton began an overhaul of the biggest U.K. drugmaker by launching a search for Chief Executive Officer Andrew Witty’s successor and replacing a third of the board as he seeks to pacify some disgruntled investors.
Witty, 51, will retire next March, after almost a decade at the helm, the London-based company said in a statement on Thursday. Glaxo also plans what Hampton termed a “board refreshment” as directors Deryck Maughan, Stephanie Burns, Daniel Podolsky and Hans Wijers won’t stand for re-election at the annual meeting in May.
Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
Witty, once hailed as one of the pharmaceutical industry’s most visionary managers, has faced criticism for Glaxo’s lagging share performance, sluggish sales and a pipeline lacking promising medicines. A bribery scandal in China that led to a $489 million fine last year also tarnished his image, which he had built with initiatives to develop the world’s first malaria vaccine and reform the way medicines are marketed to doctors.
“Glaxo needs a shakeup at the top,” said Gareth Powell, a portfolio manager at Polar Capital LLP in London whose holdings include Glaxo shares. “There’s a lack of truly innovative products, and that’s what they need to sort out.”
Last year, Witty oversaw the biggest reorganization since the merger that created Glaxo 15 years ago. He sold the company’s cancer drugs to Novartis AG in exchange for the Swiss firm’s vaccines business and cash. The companies also formed a joint venture, controlled by Glaxo, to sell consumer health products.
Glaxo shares fell 1.3 percent to 1,394 pence at 12:07 p.m. in London trading. The stock has returned an average of 10 percent a year over the past five years, compared with a 17 percent average annual return for the Bloomberg Europe Pharmaceutical Index.
“By next year, I will have been CEO for nearly ten years and I believe this will be the right time for a new leader to take over,” Witty said in the statement. He began leading Britain’s largest drugmaker in 2008 after more than 20 years at the company, including postings in the U.S., Asia and Africa.
Both internal and external candidates will be considered for the role. Glaxo investor Neil Woodford said he would like to see someone from outside the company take the top job. One of that person’s first tasks may be to slash the dividend, investors said.
Potential candidates include Emma Walmsley, head of Glaxo’s consumer-health division, and Abbas Hussain, president of its drug business, according to reports in U.K. media. Chief Financial Officer Simon Dingemans and Roger Connor, who oversees global manufacturing and supplies, may also be considered as internal successors. David Epstein, head of Novartis’s pharmaceutical unit, may also be approached, the reports said.
Witty’s views have diverged from those of his peers. He has avoided large-scale acquisitions that have consumed others such as Pfizer Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. And in 2011, he started a program called Patient First that eliminated the link between sales targets and bonuses for Glaxo’s U.S. marketing team, following allegations of illegally promoting drugs. Few drugmakers followed his lead.
Glaxo’s sales declined to 23.9 billion pounds ($34.2 billion) last year from a peak of 28.4 billion pounds the year after Witty joined. Core earnings per share will probably surge this year, the company has said, after two years of declines.
“The decision will allow him to step aside at a high point following the company’s expected return to double-digit earnings growth in 2016,” Richard Parkes, an analyst at Deutsche Bank AG in London, wrote in a note to clients.
One bright spot has been Glaxo’s portfolio of HIV medicines, which the company considered spinning off in an IPO before opting to keep it. The British drugmaker also has one of the broadest drug pipelines in the industry, with more than 70 new medicines in development (though many are early-stage drugs that won’t deliver sales anytime soon), according to a Bloomberg Intelligence pipeline analysis.
A breakup of the company, favored by some investors including Woodford, might not generate that much value, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Sam Fazeli. Separating the drugs, vaccines and consumer-health units will probably increase Glaxo’s enterprise value of 83 billion pounds ($118 billion) by 10 percent or less, he estimated.
July 16, 2014 10:00 pm
GlaxoSmithKline faces further scrutiny from US prosecutors after it emerged that staff were caught bribing Chinese officials more than a decade ago.
The revelation comes as US and UK authorities investigate allegations that GSK employees bribed doctors and officials more recently to boost drug sales in China.
The Financial Times has learnt that GSK also found problems with its China vaccine business in 2001 that led to the firing of about 30 employees.
The US Department of Justice, which is investigating the current allegations, will take a close look at the earlier scandal, said a former senior DoJ official who asked to remain anonymous. If it found a pattern of such behaviour, the justice department was likely to take a tougher stance towards the company, legal experts said.
Two people familiar with the 2001 scandal said GSK found that staff were bribing Chinese officials and taking kickbacks. The company acknowledged the matter for the first time to the Financial Times, but said it had dealt with the issue rigorously.
Timothy Blakely, a partner at the US law firm Morrison & Foerster, said US prosecutors would have to examine the 2001 case under justice department guidelines to see whether there was a pattern of behaviour.
“It is something that a prosecutor would have to take into account,” said Mr Blakely.
GSK asked PwC to investigate the case when the corruption suspicions emerged. “These matters occurred over 12 years ago. We believe appropriate investigation and action was taken at the time,” it said.
One member of the PwC team in 2001 was Peter Humphrey. Now an independent investigator, he is being held in China on charges of illegally buying private information in connection with GSK’s current scandal.
The rapid move to hire PwC in 2001 contrasts with the response to the current scandal. After a whistleblower made allegations against the company last year, GSK first relied on an internal probe with external legal and auditor support. That inquiry found no evidence of systemic corruption, although some staff were dismissed for expenses irregularities.
GSK has since hired Ropes & Gray, a US law firm, to conduct an external inquiry. In May, Chinese police said they had evidence of “massive and systemic bribery”.
“We have zero tolerance for unethical behaviour,” GSK said. “We investigate any allegations put to us and take action where necessary.”
The earlier scandal came the year after GSK was formed via a merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKlineBeecham. In late 2001, Paul Carter, GSK’s new China head, asked PwC to investigate after suspicions of corruption emerged, including the fact that two staff had been detained in China without him being told.
PwC confirmed the suspicions, and Mr Carter fired the Chinese head of vaccine sales in China. Mr Carter left GSK in 2005 long before the current problems emerged. He declined to comment.
Chris Baron, the general manager for the vaccines unit in 2001, denied knowledge of the bribery at the time. He was suspended and, soon after, left the company.
Mr Baron said PwC concluded he had “no personal involvement or knowledge” related to the bribery. But he said “there was some debate as to whether I may have been insufficiently diligent to spot the matter earlier”.
At the time of the 2001 incident, Sir Andrew Witty, GSK chief executive, was the company’s head of Asia-Pacific, but his responsibilities excluded China. GSK said Sir Andrew “was not involved in and was not aware of” the case at the time.
Sir Andrew has tried to cast GSK as a leader in ethical reforms since it was hit with a record $3bn DoJ fine for marketing abuses in 2012. But his clean-up effort, including measures to cut the link between sales volume and pay for marketing personnel, has been overshadowed by the latest scandal in China.
May 27 (Reuters) – GlaxoSmithKline Plc said on Tuesday that Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has opened a formal criminal investigation into its commercial practices.
GSK said in a statement that it would cooperate fully with the SFO and was committed to operating its business to the highest ethical standards.
The statement gave no further details about the investigation. (Reporting by Andy Bruce, editing by David Milliken
Pack of corrupt, devious, sociopathic criminals the bloody lot of them…
A British GlaxoSmithKline executive has been accused by Chinese police of running “a massive bribery network”, as the corruption scandal at the pharmaceutical group deepens.
Mark Reilly ran GSK’s operations in China but now risks a jail sentence in the country after he was accused of offences that carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Chinese police claimed that that Reilly and two other Chinese executives, Zhang Guowei and Zhao Hongyan, bribed doctors and hospital officials. The bribery allegations, which will now be passed to prosecutors, were harsher than many Chinese-based executives expected, Reuters reported.
The police accused GSK, the UK’s largest pharmaceutical company, of offering billions of yuan in bribes to doctors and other hospital staff in order to boost sales of its products. Although Reilly stood down from running GSK’s China operations last July he remains an employee.
A report by the Chinese state news agency Xinhua highlights the role of the Briton. Zhang, a former vice-president of GSK China, told Xinhua that pressure to increase sales led to the bribery. “When Reilly took over the post the company’s strategy shifted from profit-oriented to sales-oriented. The sales target in China was raised every year to compensate the reduction in US and European markets.”
When lurid allegations of doctors being bribed with £320m worth of extravagant gifts and sexual favours first emerged last year GSK said the investigation was focused on Chinese executives rather than British managers.
GSK declined to comment on the specific allegations against Reilly. But in a statement the company said: “We take the allegations that have been raised very seriously. They are deeply concerning to us and contrary to the values of GSK.
“We want to reach a resolution that will enable the company to continue to make an important contribution to the health and welfare of China and its citizens.”
Reilly has been working for GSK since 1989, according to his LinkedIn profile. A graduate of University College London, he holds a PhD in pharmacology and an accountancy qualification. He rose up the GSK ranks, doing a variety of commercial jobs that included stints in Singapore, the USA and GSK’s headquarters in London. He took charge of GSK’s operations in China in January 2009, and was based in Shanghai. He left the country last July when the bribery scandal broke. He later returned and was subsequently barred from leaving. Ten days after the scandal broke Reilly was replaced as GSK’s China boss by Herve Gisserot.
Chinese police have not said whether Reilly has been detained, but officials at the British Consulate in Shanghai have said they are in contact with him and providing assistance.
GSK is also embroiled in a similar scandal in Poland after a whistleblower, Jarek Wisniewiski, told the BBC’s Panorama programme that company representatives paid doctors to boost prescriptions. GSK is also investigating bribery allegations in Jordan and Lebanon.
Chinese police Wednesday charged the British former boss of GlaxoSmithKline’s China unit and two other company executives with corruption for bribing health officials and doctors.
A Ministry of Public Security official said in Beijing that Mark Reilly (pictured) and two Chinese executives, Zhang Guowei and Zhao Hongyan, offered bribes to hospital personnel and doctors to boost GSK’s sales.
All three defendants face up to life in prison.
In July last year, China authorities accused GSK, the UK’s biggest pharma, of paying $482 million in bribes. The Ministry of Public Security said that since 2007 GSK had used 700 travel agencies to deliver the illegal payments.
Police then detained four GSK executives, including Zhang, a GSK human resources director, and Zhao, a legal affairs director.
Reilly had left China when the scandal broke but “voluntarily returned to cooperate with police.” Retuers said.
In October, Xinhua reported that Reilly was in China helping with the investigation and hadn’t been detained.
Reuters said it wasn’t able to contact him Wednesday.
A British consulate spokesperson in Shanghai told Reuters “officials were in regular contact with Reilly and were providing consular assistance.”
Xinhua said GSK’s China revenue was $1.1 billion in 2012, nearly double from when Reilly took over in 2009.
* * *
In April, GSK said it was investigating allegations the company hired government-employed doctors and pharmacists in Iraq as paid sales reps for its products.
The pharma also said it is investigating allegations of bribery in Jordan and Lebanon.
In Poland, GSK is facing a criminal probe for allegedly bribing doctors between 2010 and 2012. Prosecutors said last month they have evidence of illegal payments to 13 health centers.
Thirteen people have been charged by Poland’s anti-corruption bureau.
Richard L. Cassin is the Publisher and Editor of the FCPA Blog. He can be contacted here.
It is quite remarkable to see a mainstream corporate news agency like Forbes really nail the problems of GSK and the various ethical/integrity issues that surround Andrew Witty’s tenure as CEO. Great article, and It would be great to see more like it from the mainstream media.
We- the bloggers- have been calling out GSK on their hypocritical corporate bullshit for years now- so it’s good to see some journalists, from the mainstream, are finally catching up. Well done to Forbes for having the balls to tell it like it is. Kudos.
I write about whistleblower matters involving fraud and other issues.
But despite the full-on PR campaign, claims continue to surface about Glaxo using bribes to induce doctors to prescribe Glaxo drugs. Allegations of Glaxo’s bribery in China have hung over the company for nearly a year, and just recently similar concerns have been raised publicly about the company’s marketing practices in Poland, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon – in all, a list that is becoming as long as an Amazing Race itinerary.
It has been less than two years since Glaxo paid the US government a record-setting $3 billion to settle a range of fraud and bribery allegations, including allegations that it paid kickbacks to doctors to prescribe Glaxo drugs and that it marketed many of its drugs for unapproved uses, making unsubstantiated claims about results. (A number of those allegations were raised by whistleblowers my firm represented.)
CEO Witty promised in 2012 that GSK would make “displaying integrity in everything we do” a priority. However, the temptation of rapidly growing markets in Asia, the Middle East and Europe may have proven too difficult to resist. After all, it’s harder to convert “integrity” into rising share prices than it is to boost profits through questionable business practices.
The flood of bribery allegations is a test even for Glaxo’s professional spin doctors who, rather ironically, try to distract the public from bad news on the ethical front by announcing the company’s latest steps to reinvent itself as an ethical business venture.
For example, prior to its November 2011 announcement that the company would pay $3 billion to resolve the U.S. liabilities, Glaxo moved to pre-empt the bad news by announcing it was changing its US sales representatives’ compensation structure so that they would no longer be rewarded based on the volume and value of prescriptions sold. Such incentive-based compensation is considered to encourage illegal practices that drive sales.
But as the latest alleged bribery revelations suggest, limiting those changes to the US sales force left the rest of the world – including Glaxo’s most rapidly growing markets – open to questionable practices encouraged by incentive compensation structures that Glaxo failed to change outside the US.
In 2013, dogged by numerous media stories that it was bribing doctors in China to prescribe its drugs, Glaxo tried to blunt the fallout by belatedly announcing that all of its sales representatives worldwide would be compensated under the same terms as its US sales force, replacing financial incentives based on sales with ones based on the quality of service sales reps provide doctors and other healthcare providers.
Then in March, a top Glaxo official said in a media interview that Glaxo would hire doctors in-house to market its drugs, rather than pay physicians to speak to other doctors about its products. Within just a few weeks, like clockwork, allegations of GSK bribing physicians in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Poland surfaced.
One gets the feeling that Glaxo’s compliance efforts are geared more to pre-empting bad news than they are to making meaningful and effective changes to its business culture. Glaxo’s piecemeal approach to compliance holds back on clearly needed wholesale changes while the executive suite waits for the next investigation of unethical conduct to crop up.
With Glaxo’s recent history, it is hard to keep a straight face when reading the company’s statement responding to the latest bribery allegations involving Jordan and Lebanon. Glaxo declares: “We are confident in our processes and controls and that we do not have a systemic issue with unethical behavior in GSK.”
If Glaxo truly doesn’t recognize that bribery allegations in multiple countries around the globe add up to a “systemic issue,” then the company has even bigger management problems than it seems. In that case, GSK and Andrew Witty should be prescribed a full dose of reality – with unlimited refills.
Corruption in China and Iraq, Defective Drugs... GSK criminality and corruption has been going on for decades before these current scandals.. The following are but a small sample.. ...they don't call them the 'Global Serial Killers' for nothing you know...
[Satanic is the only word that does justice to this outfit (see Lucifer symbol over Wellcome building, below), one example: After their Trivirex MMR vaccine was withdrawn as dangerous in Canada, in 1988, they managed to get it on the UK market with a government indemnity, under another name: Pluserix (see MMR timeline). When that had to be withdrawn they then sold it to the third world (causing an outbreak of meningitis in Brazil), while they have done their best to suppress the fact it caused autism and bowel disease, along with the present MMR vaccines. Sir Nigel Davis, who dismissed the appeal over the removal of funding for the MMR litigation by the Legal Services Commission, was the brother of Lancet proprietor Crispin Davis who at the time had also recently become a non-executive director of Glaxo SmithKline. The Times group (whose CEO is James Murdoch, appointed in 2009 a non executive director with GlaxoSmithKline) through it’s journalist Deer, is leading the attack on Dr Wakefield that culminated in the GMC Kangaroo court.
Of course the big poison in their history is AZT which they are still trying to kill Africans with. Recently caught suppressing adverse effects with Avandia. One psychiatric poison is Paxil/Seroxat. God willing, this one is going to crash and burn on its way down to hell . Sell your shares now.]
Interestingly, this way of covering up the reality of deaths and damage caused by pharmaceutical corporations is becoming more common — In the UK, the case against Dr Andrew Wakefield, the whistleblower in the case of MMR (manufactured in part by GSK), was presented to the public as one of ethics, while the real issue of a damaging vaccine which harmed thousands of children was completely sidelined. If Witty and GKS did learn anything from this case, it was how to get away with culling the population of thousands, this part of their operation went very well but next time they might hope to dodge the fine for undeclared safety data. It makes me sick to my stomach, that while every high school shooting, every soldier killed in a foreign country, every notorious murder is religiously reported by the US media, GSK gets away with killing thousands without a single adverse word. And where are our gallant reporters in all this, whose going to sue them for fraudulent reporting, nothing could be a clearer sign that the media and it’s feather bedded journalists have crossed to the other side of the corporate tracks.
Getting away with murder II.(in two parts) Because of clever media manipulation, most people don’t understand what this ‘fine’ involved in the GSK mass murder case. It has been presented to the public as a case of fraud. Every news item makes clear that GSK failed to disclose certain safety data for three drugs which they produced. The penalty for this fraud, however, was only a portion of the overall ‘settlement’, the great majority of it was a straightforward claims settlement for deaths and injury caused to people who took the drugs after they had been licensed on fraudulent safety data (I know only about Avandia, for one of the other drugs see Fiona Hackman’s question below).It’s a little like an automobile company knowingly producing cars with faulty brakes, which ultimately kill thousands of people, being fined for failing to alert industry regulators to an apparent production fault. The reason why all media have reported this settlement as one of fraud is clear, had it been reported as a claims settlement even the most docile of the public would have raised eyebrows, asking the question, ‘How can a company falsify safety data, obtain a license for a drug and watch it kill and maim thousands of people?’ Mr ‘witty’ Witty, the Chief executive of GSK was able to brush off the whole settlement with the aside ‘We’ve learned from our mistakes’, when the sad fact is that it was thousands of others who learned by GSK’s criminality.—Martin Walker MA Martin Walker
“Three months ago we announced a partnership with the Wellcome Trust to invest over £1 billion to re-equip university science in Britain, the largest ever investment in Britain’s science base. Having received an overwhelming response from universities to our new University Challenge Fund we are now inviting further private sector involvement.”—Chancellor’s statement Nov 4, 1998
What is not commonly known is that the developers of the “dye”, Kodak, knew it would cause CIAA before they licensed it (May 1944).Today, there are 80 medical conditions or symptoms that have been recognised as a “cause or effect” of exposure to this “too toxic” chemical dye (NIH, 1994). Many of the drugs now used to treat these secondary conditions or symptoms of CIAA have been developed or patented by those who developed the original formula (for some, with slight changes of said formula; later, for instance, Myodil by GlaxoSmithKline).
I will go on the record to state the following: the developers of the diagnostic radiographic contrast medium knew before they applied for an NDA (new drug application) that it would cause arachnoiditis, and furthermore were aware of some of the other found reactions to this “dye” that were also not reported to the authorities.
I will go further and also place on the record that the collection of “secret studies” shows such; however, none was ever submitted to the FDA when applying for the NDA. Copies of all these “secret studies” are held in a bank safe on my behalf; these can be made available to any person who is willing to publicly publish such. [Letter Nexus Dec 2006] Arachnoiditis Awareness
The files containing the licensing history of Myodil have been ‘mislaid’ by the Medicines Control Agency. After pressure from the Myodil Action Group, which fought for an investigation, the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended a release of the documents. However, the Permanent Secretary to the Health Department refused to release the major part of the Myodil licensing documents.
On the 19th September 1988 Glaxo notified the Department of Health that Myodil was to be discontinued in the UK for commercial reasons, but they wished to retain the product licence issued in June 1987 as the product was not being discontinued worldwide. Myodil is thus still manufactured and sold overseas – it has found new markets in countries that are vulnerable to the marketing strategy that made Glaxo one of the largest pharmaceutical companies.
Glaxo has always maintained that the links between Myodil and adhesive arachnoiditis have not been proven. But in an out of court settlement in 1995, whilst denying liability Glaxo Laboratories Limited paid out, on average, £16,000 to each of 425 claimants suffering from Myodil Adhesive Arachnoiditis. A further 3,000 claimants had to withdraw because of what many of them felt to be Glaxo’s solicitors’ bullying tactics. Settling out of court meant that Glaxo effectively closed the door on any further litigation in the UK. Toxic drugs are good for you (Myodil)
The Daily Telegraph has documentary proof the Federal Government, state health authorities and doctors sanctioned the use of the dye even though they knew the devastating effects of the chemicals in it. ……“You’ve seen the chemical make-up of the substance – it contains benzene, hydrochloric acid and sulphuric acid,” he said. “How could they ever think that injecting those chemicals into somebody’s back would not be harmful?” Doctors were warned not to spill the chemical on rubber because it destroys it and dissolves polystyrene cups.  Medical cover-up
“Dr. Samuel Katz of Duke University has served as chair of both the ACIP and the Red Book committees. He co-chairs a group called the Vaccine Initiative, which is an information and advocacy group that benefited from start-up funds from at least six vaccine manufacturers. He is listed as an advisory board member to the Immunization Action Coalition (which includes the Coalition for Hepatitis B), an advocacy group that receives funding from several vaccine makers, including SmithKline Beecham, Merck and Wyeth-Lederle……..Dr. Neal Halsey of Johns Hopkins University http://www.vaccinesafety. Like Katz, he is a vaccine pioneer and served on ACIP and the Red Book committees. He, too, is an advisor to the Immunization Action Coalition and the Hepatitis B Coalition. Halsey is also director of the Institute for Vaccine Safety, which he founded at Johns Hopkins to provide a forum on vaccine safety, among other things. According to a Johns Hopkins’ spokesperson, the institute receives funds from Merck, SmithKline Beecham, North American Vaccines, Connaught/Pasteur Merrieux and Wyeth-Lederle.”—-Nicholas Regush ABCNEWS.com
“NCK & GHCWaters pointed out that the confidential study’s lead author, Thomas Verstraeten, has since left the Centers for Disease Control and is now employed by GlaxoSmithKline, a manufacturer of thimerosal containing vaccines for many years that is a defendant in numerous suits pending nationwide. “We have asked GlaxoSmithKline to provide Mr. Verstraeten’s deposition in order to understand if conflict of interest issues may have played a role in the CDC’s decision to keep this report confidential, and specifically, their failure to reveal it to the Institute of Medicine.”–AUTISM DAILY NEWSLETTER Thursday January 3, 2002
“In the latest annual report for the “Medicines Act 1968 Advisory Bodies”, she (Miller) lists five “non-personal” interests — payments which benefit her department rather than herself personally. They are grants from Baxter Healthcare, Wyeth Lederle Vaccines, Chiron Biocine, and SmithKline Beecham and “CMI testing in adolescent sera”, courtesy of Aventis Pasteur.”–Private Eye
“Professor David Elliman, whose study said fears of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism were unfounded, admitted that he and Dr Helen Bedford had been given money by drugs giants SmithKline Beecham and Pasteur Merieux Merck Sharp & Dohme. Their report, MMR Vaccine – Worries Are Not Justified, is published in the current issue of the medical journal Archives of Disease in Childhood, and was used by the government to reiterate its view that the vaccine is safe.”–Media
“Wyeth Lederle had paid Dr. Edwards $255,023 per year from 1996 to 1998 for the study of pneumococcal vaccines (i.e. Prevnar). Edwards is also one of fifteen full-time members of FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, the committee that advises the FDA on the licensing of new vaccines……Rennels was instrumental in getting RotaShield to market and is now involved in Prevnar. Her university receives a total of over $2.5 million from various drug and vaccine companies including Wyeth Lederle, Prevnar’s manufacturer. She is also one of the twelve members of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, the committee that makes vaccine recommendations as part of the American Academy of Pediatrics…..This doctor (Dr. Jerome Klein) has been employed by the major vaccine manufacturers to testify against vaccine injured children. He is also chief editor of pneumo.com the website paid for by Wyeth Lederle to sponsor Prevnar. Furthermore, Klein holds a position on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, the committee that recommends products for universal vaccination.”–Michael Horwin, MA“
“A Sunday Express investigation has found that nearly a third of the 181 experts who sit on the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) committees are linked to GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur or Merck, Sharpe and Dohme.”–Sunday Express
“Currently, 37 members of the CSM have a total of 188 separate financial links with the pharmaceuticals industry, inc the vacc manufacturers, including 82 separate personal declared links. These include shares, fees, consultancies, research grants and non-executive directorships. Also further 106 non-personal declared links. Source: Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life). Vaccine companies directly linked to members of CSM through personal declared financial links include SmithKline Beecham (NB), Merck Sharpe Dohme (NB), Lilly Industries, Pfizer, Glaxo Wellcome (NB), Bayer, Proctor 7 Gamble, British Biotech, Medeva Pharma. Members with personal financial links with MMR manufacturers are Messrs Blenkinsopp, Dargie, Donaghy, Evans, Forfar, MacGowan, Smyth, Wilkie. (Source: Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life).”–David Thrower Flawed UK Regulatory and Monitoring Systems (2001)
“A Parliamentary Written Question by Mrs. Ann Winterton MP in May 1999 confirmed the following declared interests within the JCVI membership (NB – the PWQ related only to a limited range of pharmaceuticals companies, so the full list will be greater than this): Professor Lewis Ritchie (Glaxo Wellcome), Dr. Barbara Bannister (Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham), Dr. David Goldblatt (SmithKline Beecham), Dr. Diana Walford (Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham), Professor Roy Anderson (Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham), Dr. Karl Nicholson (Glaxo Wellcome)”–David Thrower Flawed UK Regulatory and Monitoring Systems (2001)
“The MCA is of course headed by a former top executive at SmithKline, Dr Ian Hudson.”–Private Eye
“5 out of 6 members of the (UK) Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation had interests with Glaxo Wellcome, 4 with SmithKline Beecham (ref: May 1999 Secretary of State for Health)
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html
“Friends of Children Fund” Annual Report, July 1, 1996 – June 30, 1997, indicates $2.085 million in funding from corporations. Donors include Procter & Gamble, Gerber, Infant Formula Council, McNeil Consumer Products Company, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products, Abbott Laboratories, Wyeth-Lederle Vaccine & Pediatrics, Mead Johnson Nutritionals, SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Schering Corp., Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Food Marketing Institute, Sugar Association, International Food Information Council, Merck Vaccine Division, and others. Also gets foundation support (RWJ, Pew, etc.).
“Lemon S, Thomas DL. Vaccines to prevent viral hepatitis. N Engl J Med 1997;336:196-204. Dr. Lemon received grants from SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals.“–NEJM
Great post from the retired psychiatrist from his blog 1boringoldman
Always astute and wise, very insightful blog and very much appreciated writing..
Great to see that there are other people out there who see through GSK's lies..
Fierce PharmaMarketingBy Tracy StatonApril 7, 2014
GlaxoSmithKline [$GSK] says it’s rolling out sales and marketing reforms around the world. Apparently, the changes come none too soon. The British drugmaker opened another bribery investigation, this time in Iraq, to check out allegations that it paid government-employed physicians to promote its products. And Glaxo hasn’t yet finished working through the scandalous Chinese bribery allegations that kicked off an industry-wide corruption crackdown.
So, CEO Andrew Witty and his team sound a bit … conflicted. On the one hand, Witty sounds the perfectly contrite corporate leader. He apologized for the marketing allegations that ended with a $3 billion Department of Justice settlements. He’s promised good behavior and touted those worldwide sales reforms. But on the other, the company is digging into at least two sets of corruption accusations, and faces related repercussions at home and in the U.S. Two bribery probes in two different geographic divisions? That’s a systemic problem.
When the Chinese bribery scandal hit, Glaxo’s U.K. headquarters was quick to say that head-office executives didn’t know about any malfeasance in its China subsidiary. That may be so. But if HQ didn’t know, that means HQ was either turning a blind eye or failing to pay enough attention. Either way, that’s not a good thing for a company trying to clean up its image.
If Witty really wants to reform GSK, then he and his top managers need to move beyond plausible deniability. They can’t just launch new quota-free sales-rep compensation and promise to stop paying speaking fees to doctors in the U.S. and beyond. Painful follow-through has to happen.We need to see Glaxo execs take out their brooms, and move into global operations to sweep out misbehavior. If they don’t, whistleblowers and government investigators will. And that makes all those the sales-and-marketing changes look like little more than window-dressing.
New York TimesBy MELODY PETERSENAugust 3, 2003
Two scientists are raising concerns about an article in a medical journal that described experimental treatments for depression because an author did not disclose his significant financial ties to three therapies that he mentioned favorably. The executive editor of the journal said it had not required disclosure of the potential conflicts, but was considering changing its policy in light of the criticism. The ties between pharmaceutical companies and researchers have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years.The lead author of the article, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff, chairman of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Emory School of Medicine in Atlanta, said he would have reported the conflicts of interest, which include owning the patent on a treatment he mentioned, if the journal had asked him to. ”I have always been totally compliant, probably gone overboard, with disclosure,” Dr. Nemeroff said. ”If there is a fault here, it is with the journal’s policy.”
The Wall Street JournalBy David ArmstrongJuly 19, 2006
Charles Nemeroff, one of the nation’s most prominent psychiatrists, edits the journal Neuropsychopharmacology, which this month favorably reviewed a controversial new treatment for depression. But Tuesday, the journal said it plans to publish a correction because it failed to cite the ties of the article’s eight academic authors to the company that makes the treatment, including the article’s lead author: Dr. Nemeroff.The journal’s nondisclosure of the financial ties of its own editor as well as those of the other authors highlights the failure of many respected medical journals to identify relationships between academic researchers and medical companies that may benefit from positive research reports. A spate of recent lapses is prompting calls for more journals to ban offending authors from publication. In addition, medical schools are being urged to regulate relationships between their researchers and industry more closely…
I was a retired person before I was capable of believing that Doctors, Academic Department Chairmen, and Pharmaceutical Companies named after long-dead men with handle-bar mustaches were capable of the kind of deceit we’ve all seen in recent decades – but our naivety has given way to, at the least, a careful suspiciousness, even paranoia about such matters. And GSK has placed itself in a goldfish bowl that’s going to be hard to escape.
It is just unbelievable how this pharmaceutical company is permitted to continue to operate…
MONDAY, JANUARY 03, 2011
So. How does one defend the indefensible?
Here’s GSK’s Ian McCubbin’s (pic) attempt:
Ian McCubbin is a senior vice president from Glaxo headquarters in London.
“We regret what happened in Cidra. But we’ve worked really, really hard to resolve those issues. We spend $600 million every year on make sure that our plant and equipment is state of the art,” McCubbin said.
“Would you say that the company was chastened by all of this?” Pelley asked.
“No, I’d say the company was very disappointed that this occurred and that we regret that this occurred. But we’ve learned from it. And what you learn from, you become stronger,” McCubbin replied.
McCubbin told Pelley the company has about 80 plants around the world. When asked if any of them operate the way Cidra did, he said, “Absolutely not.”
“So how did Cidra go wrong?” Pelley asked.
“They all operated to the same standard, to the same quality system that we had in place. The difference between Cidra and all the rest of the plants is the effectiveness with which that quality system was implemented it was much weaker and that resulted in the compliance issues that occurred,” McCubbin said.
“Cheryl Eckard says that she was issuing warnings and no one was listening,” Pelley remarked.
“I don’t know Cheryl Eckard. And I don’t know all the details of her accusations. What I do know is that we were working with the FDA before Cheryl went to that plant,” McCubbin said.
Nice try Ian!
But who is Ian McCubbin? And why did GSK have him speak on their behalf if he didn’t know Cheryl Eckard or all of the details of her accusations?
Ian is currently responsible for strategy development and execution within GSK’s Global Manufacturing & Supply organisation. In addition he holds responsibility for the Global Logistics organisation which delivers supply chain processes connecting the Manufacturing and Commercial organisation. Prior to rejoining GSK in July 2006 Ian undertook significant Global Operations roles in the generic Pharmaceutical sector with two of the top 10 Global generic companies. Ian is a pharmacy graduate with additional management qualifications.
Glaxo pleaded guilty to a felony. It admitted it distributed “adulterated drugs Paxil CR, Avandamet (a diabetes drug), Kytril (a drug given to cancer patients), and Bactroban.” All together, the company paid $750 million to settle the criminal conviction and Eckard’s suit.
“Can anything like this happen at Glaxo again?” Pelley asked Glaxo’s Ian McCubbin.
“I absolutely hope not. We will work really hard to resolve these issues and make sure that our quality management system is in place and robust,” he replied.
Well done Ian!
Now – how many senior execs who ignored Cheryl Eckard’s pleas and tears still have jobs at GSK?
the ecosystem approach to obgyn
Finding joy in my 60's
Poetry, Short Stories and Violent Ideas
"HAVE NO FEAR OF PERFECTION, YOU'LL NEVER REACH IT" - Salvador Dali
A radical perspective on local, national and international issues from the pens of a few disgruntled agitators!
Reports from my somewhat unusual life
sustainability. compassion. inspiration.
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
becoming not being.......
Because Social Media increases Awareness and brings the DES Community Together
people can and do recover from what is sometimes called "mental illness"
I have people to kill, lives to ruin, plagues to bring, and worlds to destroy. I am not the Angel of Death. I'm a fiction writer.