Tagged: CEO

Delving Into GSK’s Dexedrine..


Page_1

 

 

“…..Dexedrine allowed me to zone out like no other drug did, not because it was better than cocaine….. but because unlike cocaine, it was legally sanctioned and morally sanctified—my teachers, many of my peers, and society at large approved of my addiction.

I’d gone through the medical establishment to get drugs, so I had a stamp of approval, a legal document that gave me permission to get high, mentally drop out of my life, and get a pat on the back in the process. That’s the perversity of prescription drugs

Dexedrine was a sign of my progress, not a sign of my demise.

Of course, beyond the buzz was something dangerous. Pain lurked right underneath the surface of my supposed OK-ness. As each pill started to wear off, I’d feel an immense, crushing sadness. It was part normal amphetamine withdrawal, and part realization that I hated my life….”

I don’t feel resentment over the years I was on speed because I know I’m in good company. I take solace in the fact that I’m not just a lost boy with a crisis in personal responsibility. I’m a statistic in America’s drug problem.

There was a 17 percent increase in ADHD prescriptions between 2010 and 2011. Now, one in five high school boys are diagnosed with ADHD. In 2011, 57 million prescriptions were filled for anti-psychotics, a scary class of psycho-pharmaceuticals that have been called “chemical lobotomies”, but which are increasingly used to treat depression (even though there’s very little evidence they work to treat depression). Over the last two decades, antidepressant use has spiked by 400 percent. One in five American women are currently on an antidepressant…..”

Excerpts taken from-

All My Friends Are Dead


 

 

Dexedrine is an ADHD drug manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, and like most GSK drugs that we read about, it also comes with its fair share of controversy. I haven’t delved into it before, but the more I do the darker it gets.

I believe that a diagnosis of ADHD is a massive abuse of a child’s human rights. The majority of kids- at some point- become boisterous, or have phases when they are hyper. Sometimes this can be difficult for parents, but…

This is normal behavior.

What is not normal is the mass drugging of kids with psych-drugs.

I understand that some kids are hard to control, and are much more hyper than others, but is drugging them with a schedule II controlled substance like Dexedrine, for years of their childhood, not setting them up for failure? surely the side effects from an amphetamine like Dexedrine, and the damage it would cause over time, is seriously bad in the long run? And furthermore, how is a stimulant supposed to calm a hyper-active child?

It seems to me, that ADHD diagnoses could be one of the easiest conditions to mis-diagnose, as many kids could display these behaviors at any time; and in many cases, this passes like all behavior growing up does. Therefore many kids are being drugged unnecessarily and turned into addicts before they reach their teens. This is wholly wrong.

ADHD has become a catch-all diagnoses for psychiatrists who seem all to keen to get kids on to ADHD drugs. Of course this is a boon for the drugs industry, and like antidepressants, ADHD drugs are a big money spinner. It’s a scandal that’s worth drawing attention to, but I won’t go too deep into it with this post.

I have to admit, after blogging about Seroxat, and other GSK patient abuses, over the years, it’s often hard to shock me, but I was deeply disturbed when I read the PIL (patient information leaflet) of Dexedrine.

Bear in mind that this drug- GSK’s Dexedrine- is prescribed to (and marketed directly for use in) kids from the ages of 3 years to 5 years old, and also from 6 and over. It’s pushed on adults too of course- with the newer adult ADHD diagnosis: another boon for psychiatry and their drug company buddies. Imagine being put on a drug like Dexedrine from the age of 3? What kind of damage would that do to a person?

Read through Dexedrine’s horrific side effect profile (excerpts below), and ask yourself, do you think the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline- Emma Walmsely (apparently a mother herself) would allow her kids to take a drug like Dexedrine?

Would Walmsley prescribe her kids a drug that has bold warnings about its main side effect of SUDDEN DEATH?

Would she recommend Dexedrine (or Seroxat/Paxil for that matter) to the other mothers at her kid’s schools?

Does she even believe in the dubious ADHD diagnoses?

Does she think that it’s ok to drug kids with Dexedrine and Seroxat?

Does Emma Walmsley think that drugs like Seroxat and Dexedrine are appropriate drugs for anyone- considering  that both drugs have a vast and disturbing side effect profile listed in their PILS? (side effect profiles so vast that they would indicate that the risks clearly outweigh any perceived benefits).

 

Dex1

Dex2

 

Dex3

Dex4

 

Dex6

 

Dex5.png

Dex7.png

Dex8


 

Similar to Seroxat, Dexedrine has a huge side effect profile (see Seroxat’s massive side effect profile here). Like Seroxat too, Dexedrine, has also been controversial, particularly in terms of the warning of sudden death.

Back in 2006, the FDA forced GSK to put a Black Box Warning on Dexedrine because of this side effect. GSK’s Seroxat drug (Paxil in the US) also has a Black Box warning in America (mainly because Seroxat can induce suicide).

Both of these drugs harm kids. GSK is responsible for that.

Dexedrine was on the market, for GSK, since 1952, that’s a long time.

GSK first marketed Seroxat in 1991.

How many people has Dexedrine harmed, damaged or killed over the years?

As many as Seroxat perhaps? or maybe more..

Is anybody keeping count? does anybody even care?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/deaths-force-gsk-to-add-warning-to-attention-deficit-disorder-drug-413030.html

 

Deaths force GSK to add warning to attention deficit disorder drug

The Independent Online

 

The US Food and Drug Administration has ordered GlaxoSmithKline to put a black-box warning on its Dexedrine drug for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to alert doctors and patients to the risk of heart problems and psychotic behaviour.

The FDA said there had been reports of sudden death caused by stimulant treatment in children and adolescents with serious heart problems. The new labels will also alert patients to the risk that pre-existing psychotic disorders, such as bipolar illness, may be exacerbated. New psychiatric symptoms such as hallucinations can also emerge.

The FDA decided in May that all manufacturers of ADHD drugs should update their warnings about the risks they carry. This affects Novartis’s Ritalin, Shire’s Adderall XR, Eli Lilly’s Strattera and Johnson & Johnson’s Concerta.

GSK wrote a Dear Doctor letter advising US practitioners of the changes in the labelling of Dexedrine. The letter was published on the FDA’s website on Monday. Dexedrine is one of GSK’s oldest drugs, having been launched in 1952. The company said it had a 0.8 per cent share of the American ADHD market. “It’s a really small part of our business,” a spokeswoman said.

Ritalin also hit the market in the 1950s and is used by 8.4 million patients a year worldwide. “It is not one of our top 10 products,” a Novartis spokeswoman said.

Its smaller rival, Shire, relies on Adderall for much of its growth. It captured a record 26 per cent of the American ADHD market last year, with sales of $730.8m (£387.5m).

Five million Americans use ADHD drugs, 3.3 million of them under 19. FDA reports describe a seven-year-old boy who after taking ADHD drugs thought he saw people coming into his house and stealing presents


 

http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2016/10/27/adhd-a-destructive-psychiatric-hoax/

ADHD: A Destructive Psychiatric Hoax

INTRODUCTION

Earlier this year, Alan Schwarz, an investigative reporter for the New York Times, published his latest book:  ADHD Nation.

The blurb on the jacket states:

“More than 1 in 7 American children get diagnosed with ADHD—three times what experts have said is appropriate—meaning that millions of kids are misdiagnosed and taking medications such as Adderall or Concerta for a psychiatric condition they probably do not have.  The numbers rise every year.  And still, many experts and drug companies deny any cause for concern.  In fact, they say that adults and the rest of the world should embrace ADHD and that its medications will transform their lives.

In ADHD Nation, Alan Schwarz examines the roots and the rise of this cultural and medical phenomenon: The father of ADHD, Dr. Keith Conners, spends fifty years advocating drugs like Ritalin before realizing his role in what he now calls ‘a national disaster of dangerous proportions’; a troubled young girl and a studious teenage boy get entangled in the growing ADHD machine and take medications that backfire horribly; and Big Pharma egregiously over-promotes the disorder and earns billions from the mishandling of children (and now adults).”

And who could argue with any of that?  But the blurb continues:

“While demonstrating that ADHD is real and can be medicated when appropriate, Schwarz sounds a long-overdue alarm and urges America to address this growing national health crisis.”

And there, of course, is where we must part company.

When I first read the jacket blurb, I was curious as to what kinds of arguments Alan Schwarz would marshal to support the contention that ADHD is “real”, and that it sometimes warrants “medication”.  And let us be clear as to the meaning of the word “real”.  Nobody is denying that inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity can be real problems.  The issue at stake , however, is whether it makes any sense to conceptualize this loose cluster of vaguely-defined problems as an illness.  Usually when people say or write that ADHD is “real”, they mean that this cluster of problems listed in the APA’s catalog (DSM) is a genuine, bona fide illness – just like diabetes; and that people who “have” this so-called illness must take their “medication” in the same way that diabetics must take insulin.  So, the promise on the jacket that Mr. Schwarz would demonstrate that ADHD is a real illness seemed significant, and as I said earlier, I was particularly interested in whether he had anything new to add to this debate.

Here’s the opening page of the Introduction.

“Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is real.  Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

A boy who careens frenziedly around homes and busy streets can endanger himself and others.  A girl who cannot, even for two minutes, sit and listen to her teachers will not learn.  An adult who lacks the concentration to complete a health-insurance form accurately will fail the demands of modern life.  When a person of any age has a combination of these struggles—severely enough to impair his daily functioning—with no other plausible explanation for them, then he could very well have a serious, if still somewhat mysterious, condition that medicine has decided to call ADHD.

No one quite knows what causes it.  The most commonly cited theory is that the hypractivity, lack of focus, and impulsivity of classic ADHD result from some sort of dysfunction among chemicals and synapses in the brain.  A person’s environment clearly plays a role as well: a chaotic home, an inflexible classroom, or a distracting workplace all can induce or exacerbate symptoms.  Unfortunately, as with many psychiatric illnesses, such as depression or anxiety, there is no definitive way to diagnose ADHD, no blood test or CAT scan that lets a doctor declare, ‘Okay, there it is’—all one can do is thoughtfully assess whether the severity of the behavior warrants a diagnosis.  (After all, we all are distractible or impulsive to varying degrees.)  One thing is certain, though: There is no cure for ADHD.  Someone with the disorder might learn to adapt to it, perhaps with the help of medication, but patients young and old are generally told that they will deal with their abnormal brains for the rest of their lives.” (p 1)

And there is it.  Let’s take a closer look.

“Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is real.  Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

The reality or otherwise of “ADHD” is the fundamental issue of this entire debate, and it is clear from this opening statement that Mr. Schwarz has not approached this question with anything resembling the kind of open-mindedness that one expects from an investigative journalist.

But it gets worse.

“A boy who careens frenziedly around homes and busy streets can endanger himself and others.”

Mr. Schwarz is clearly trying to create the impression that this kind of behavior is fairly typical of children who “have ADHD”, and he is also pointing out that the behaviors are serious.  What he doesn’t mention, however, and perhaps isn’t even aware of, is that physically dangerous activity – including running “into street without looking” – was one of the specific criteria for ADHD in DSM-III-R, but was diluted to “runs about or climbs excessively” in DSM-IV.  And in DSM-5, the word “excessively” was dropped.  Here are the actual items from the three editions:

DSM-III-R (1987):
“(14) often engages in physically dangerous activities without considering possible consequences (not for the purpose of thrill-seeking), e.g., runs into street without looking” (p 53)

DSM-IV (1994)
Under the sub-heading Hyperactivity:
“(c) often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness)” (p 84)

DSM-5 (2013)
Under the sub-heading Hyperactivity and impulsivity:
“c.  Often runs about or climbs in situations where it is inappropriate.  (Note: in adolescents or adults, may be limited to feeling restless.) (p 60)

So, a boy who careens frenziedly around homes and busy streets would probably meet the standard in all three editions, but – and this is the critical point – there is no requirement in the latter editions of such extreme behavior to score a “symptom” hit.  Contrary to Mr. Schwarz’s implied assertion, a child does not have to engage in such extreme or dangerous behavior to meet any of the APA’s criteria for this so-called illness. And it needs to be noted particularly that since 1994, the only requirement under this item for adults and adolescents is that they experience feelings of restlessness!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“A girl who cannot, even for two minutes, sit and listen to her teachers will not learn.”

How can Alan Schwarz – or anyone else, for that matter – deduce that a girl who doesn’t pay attention to her teachers, can’t pay attention.  This is an invalid inference, but is standard procedure in psychiatry.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“When a person of any age has a combination of these struggles—severely enough to impair his daily functioning—with no other plausible explanation for them, then he could very well have a serious, if still somewhat mysterious, condition that medicine has decided to call ADHD.”

This again is standard psychiatric patter:  the flaw is contained in the phrase “…with no other plausible explanation for them…”

Anyone who has had even the slightest experience working with children and families can attest to the fact that there are always alternative psychosocial explanations, if one is prepared to look for them.  The reality, however, is that within the practice of psychiatry, these alternate explanations are almost never sought.

And the reason they are not sought is because psychiatry has effectively closed the door on these kinds of deliberations.  Within the psychiatric framework, if a child (or adult) meets the arbitrary and inherently vague criteria listed in the DSM, then he has a brain illness called ADHD.  So the notion of even looking for psychosocial explanations not only doesn’t happen, but would be seen within psychiatry as ridiculous.

In real medicine, if a person has pneumonia, then that is the explanation of his persistent cough, nasty phlegm, weakness, etc..  The notion of a physician in such circumstances casting around for an alternative psychosocial explanation would be pointless.  Similarly, psychiatrists, firmly wedded as they are to their spurious illness perspective, don’t look for ordinary human explanations of the problems they encounter.  The difference, of course, between psychiatry and real medicine is that the latter’s diagnoses are indeed genuine explanations of the presenting problems.  In psychiatry, the “diagnoses” are merely labels that psychiatrists assign to the loose clusters of vague problems, and have no explanatory value whatsoever.

To demonstrate this, consider the two following hypothetical conversations.

Client’s parent:  Why is my son so distractible; why does he make so many mistakes in his schoolwork; why does he not listen to me when I speak to him; why is he so disorganized?
Psychiatrist:  Because he has an illness called attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Parent:  How do you know he has this illness?
Psychiatrist:  Because he is so distractible, makes so many mistakes in his schoolwork, doesn’t listen when you speak to him, and is so disorganized.

The critical point being that in psychiatry, the only evidence for the “illness” is the very behavior it purports to explain.  In other words:  your son is distracted because he is distracted.

Contrast this with a similar conversation in real medicine.

Patient:  Why am I so tired; why did my temperature spike; why am I spitting up such dreadful-looking phlegm?
Physician:  Because you have pneumonia.
Patient:  How do you know I have pneumonia?
Physician:  Because I can hear characteristic sounds through the stethoscope; your chest X-ray shows large quantities of fluid in both lungs; your sputum labs are positive for pneumococcus; and because everything you have told me is consistent with this diagnosis.  I can show you the X-rays if you like.

In this conversation, there is no circularity to the reasoning.  The pneumonia is the cause of the symptoms and constitutes a genuine and useful explanation.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“No one quite knows what causes it.”

Well actually, lots of people know what prompts children to “careen frenziedly around homes and busy streets”.  It is very simply that the discipline and self-control to refrain from this kind of activity has not been instilled at an appropriate age.  And it’s not “somewhat mysterious”.  It’s something that parents and grandparents have been dealing with probably since prehistoric times.  And the same goes for the other ADHD behaviors, misleadingly called “symptoms” in the DSM.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The most commonly cited theory is that the hyperactivity, lack of focus, and impulsivity of classic ADHD result from some sort of dysfunction among chemicals and synapses in the brain.”

And just when we thought that the long-discredited chemical imbalance hoax was about to die!  Mr. Schwarz seems unaware that most leading psychiatrists are at the present time busy distancing themselves from this particular inanity, which was a mainstay of the psychiatric hoax for decades.  The very eminent and highly prestigious Tufts psychiatrist Ronald Pies, MD has even gone so far as to claim that psychiatry never promoted this hoax – an assertion that adds an entire new dimension to academia’s allegorical ivory tower.

Then Mr. Schwarz gets to the point:

“Unfortunately, as with many psychiatric illnesses, such as depression or anxiety, there is no definitive way to diagnose ADHD, no blood test or CAT scan that lets a doctor declare, ‘Okay, there it is’—all one can do is thoughtfully assess whether the severity of the behavior warrants a diagnosis.  (After all, we all are distractible or impulsive to varying degrees.)”

So despite the earlier vagueness, and despite Mr. Schwarz’s condemnation of what he describes as the over-diagnosis of ADHD, he is clearly a firm supporter of psychiatry’s contention that inattention, impulsivity, and general gadding about constitute an illness, if the behaviors cross some ill-defined threshold of severity.

This is another of psychiatry’s core fallacies, routinely promoted, not only in the successive editions of the DSM, but also in the defensive writings of psychiatry’s most prestigious promoters:  if a problem of thinking, feeling, or behaving crosses some arbitrary and vaguely defined thresholds, of severity, duration, or frequency, it becomes, through some alchemy known only to psychiatry, an illness.  The fact that no organic pathology has ever been identified is of no consequence.  If the problem is severe enough, then it’s an illness.

And the reason for this travesty is that within the looking-glass realm of psychiatric diagnosis, the cause of the problem is irrelevant.  This is the essential point of Robert Spitzer’s phenomenological approach as embodied in his DSM-III and in subsequent editions.  Why a person exhibits a problem is of no consequence.  If, in the case, say of “ADHD”, a child is inattentive, overly active and impulsive to the degree specified, albeit loosely, in the text, then he has the illness.  Whether he emits these behaviors because of lax parenting, inconsistent parenting, indulgent parenting, sibling rivalry, emotional abuse, or some other cause, makes no difference to the “diagnosis”.  In marked contrast to real medicine, where diagnosis and cause are virtually synonymous, in psychiatric diagnosis, the cause of the problem is immaterial.  If the child emits the behaviors in question, for any reason or cause, then he “has the illness”.  The “illness” in fact is nothing more than the presence of the vaguely-defined problem behaviors.  There is no requirement of neurological pathology, nor any evidence that the behaviors in question entail a neurological pathology.  DSM-III describes this approach as “…atheoretical with regard to etiology or pathophysiologic process except with regard to disorders for which this is well established and therefore included in the definition of the disorder.” (p xxiii), which is not the case with ADHD.

Far from acknowledging the obvious dishonesty of this “atheoretical” approach, DSM-III-R actually makes of it a virtue:

“The major justification for the generally atheoretical approach taken in DSM-III and DSM-III-R with regard to etiology is that the inclusion of etiologic theories would be an obstacle to use of the manual by clinicians of varying theoretical orientation since it would not be possible to present all reasonable etiologic theories for each disorder.” (p xxiii)

In reality, however, by ignoring etiological questions, the APA created the context in which “mental disorders” could be created at will on the basis of any human problem, and these “disorders” could be, and indeed are, morphed readily into “mental illnesses”, and, of course, as we see in Mr. Schwarz’s text, neuro-chemical imbalances.  Psychiatry has conveniently abandoned the notion that new diagnoses must be grounded on proven organic pathology.  Real doctors discover new illnesses through painstaking research and study – often taking years or even decades.  Psychiatry just makes them up and confirms their ontological validity by a committee vote.

For decades, psychiatry, confident in the knowledge that few people read the DSM,  simply lied with regards to the absence of organic pathology.  They told their clients, the public, and the media the blatant lie that the “chemical imbalances” existed and were the cause of the problems.  And – the biggest whopper of all – that the drugs corrected these non-existent imbalances.  They also routinely asserted that their “patients” would in many (or perhaps most) cases have to take the drugs for life.  And here again, Mr. Schwarz follows his psychiatric mentors, lock step.

“One thing is certain, though: There is no cure for ADHD.”

Again note the dogmatic arrogance.  Children who are inattentive, unruly, disobedient, and disruptive to the inherently vague degree specified in the DSM are incapable of acquiring an age-appropriate level of discipline!  How in the world could Mr. Schwarz know this?  As early as 1973, Huessy, Marshall and Gendron (Five hundred children followed from grade 2 to grade 5 for the prevalence of behavior disorder, Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 39(11), 301-309), showed that hyperactivity is not a stable pattern across time.  There is also an abundance of research going back to the 60’s that demonstrates clearly that children who are habitually inattentive, impulsive, and hyperactive  even to an extreme degree, can be trained readily to behave in a more productive and less disruptive fashion.  In fact, prior to the mid-60’s, no such research was needed, because parents and teachers routinely and successfully trained children to control their movements, and to pay attention to their studies and to their chores.  Indeed, parents and teachers accepted that this was an intrinsic part of their responsibilities.  But in 1968, with the publication of DSM-II, psychiatry’s “top experts” decreed that these problem behaviors constituted an illness that required specialist attention.  This “illness” was labeled hyperkinetic reaction of childhood.  The description ran to four lines:

“308.0  Hyperkinetic reaction of childhood (or adolescence)*
This disorder is characterized by overactivity, restlessness, distractibility,
and short attention span, especially in young children; the
behavior usually diminishes in adolescence.” (p 50)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“…patients young and old are generally told that they will deal with their abnormal brains for the rest of their lives.”

Despite decades of lavishly funded and highly motivated research, and despite the numerous enthusiastic, and subsequently discredited, claims to the contrary, there is not one shred of evidence that people who have been given the ADHD label have any brain pathology whatsoever.  In fact, no edition of DSM, including the present DSM-5, has ever included any kind of brain pathology as a criterion item for this so-called illness.  DSM-5 does include ADHD in the Neurodevelopmental Disorders section, but all that this entails is that the onset of the problem was in the developmental period.  There is no requirement of neurological pathology.  “The neurodevelopmental disorders are a group of conditions with onset in the developmental period.  The disorders typically manifest early in development, often before the child enters grade school, and are characterized by developmental deficits that produce impairments of personal, social, academic, or occupational functioning.” (p 31)  Describing “ADHD” as a neurodevelopmental disorder strikes me as extraordinarily deceptive, in that most people would interpret the term “neurodevelopmental disorder” to entail some kind of neurological pathology.  What the APA has done here is convey the impression that there is a neurological pathology involved in “ADHD”, without having to produce evidence that this is the case.

THE “OVER-DIAGNOSIS” OF ADHD

Then Mr. Schwarz gets to the main theme of his book:  that ADHD is being grossly over-diagnosed, a theme incidentally that many psychiatrists have adopted in recent years in an attempt to rescue their crumbling profession from the criticisms of anti-psychiatry.  Watch how Mr. Schwarz does this:

“The American Psychiatric Association’s official description of ADHD, codified by the field’s top experts and used to guide doctors nationwide, says that the condition affects about 5 percent of children, primarily boys.  Most experts consider this a sensible benchmark.

But what’s happening in real-life America?

Fifteen percent of youngsters in the United States—three times the consensus estimate—are getting diagnosed with ADHD.  That’s millions of extra kids being told they have something wrong with their brains, with most of them then placed on serious medications.  The rate among boys nationwide is a stunning 20 percent.  In southern states such as Mississippi, South Carolina, and Arkansas, it’s 30 percent of all boys, almost one in three.  (Boys tend to be more hyperactive and impulsive than girls, whose ADHD can manifest itself more as an inability to concentrate.)  Some Louisiana counties are approaching half—half—of boys in third through fifth grades taking ADHD medications.

ADHD has become, by far, the most misdiagnosed condition in American medicine.

Yet, distressingly, few people in the thriving ADHD industrial complex acknowledge this reality.  Many are well-meaning—they see foundering children, either in their living rooms, classrooms, or waiting rooms, and believe the diagnosis and medication can improve their lives.  Others have motives more mixed:  Sometimes teachers prefer fewer troublesome students, parents want less clamorous homes, and doctors like the steady stream of easy business.  In the most nefarious corner stand the high-profile doctors and researchers bought off by pharmaceutical companies that have reaped billions of dollars from the unchecked and heedless march of ADHD.” (p 2-3)

But what Mr. Schwarz doesn’t mention, and perhaps isn’t even aware of, is that 69% of those “top experts” in psychiatry who “codified” the criteria for ADHD for DSM-5, and whose prevalence estimates Mr. Schwarz accepts implicitly, were also in the pay of pharma.

Nor does Mr. Schwarz seem to be aware that these same “top experts” who codified the criteria for ADHD have progressively liberalized the criteria for this so-called illness.  I have listed the DSM-IV (1994) relaxations in an earlier post.  The relaxations for DSM-5 (2013) were:

– the number of inattention “symptoms” required for adolescents and adults reduced from six to five (p 59)

–  the number of hyperactivity/impulsivity “symptoms” for adolescents and adults also reduced from six to five (p 60)

–  DSM-IV specified that some symptoms of ADHD had to have been present prior to age 7 (p 84).  DSM-5 relaxed this age-of-onset criterion to 12 (p 60).

It needs to be stressed that none of these relaxations were, or indeed could have been, based on empirical evidence or science.  There is no definition of ADHD other than that set down in successive revisions of the DSM.  The notion that the pharma-paid “top experts” compared ADHD-as-it-really-is with the description in the DSM, and found discrepancies, is simply not possible.  There is no ADHD-as-it-really-is.  There is no definition other than the one that the APA made up, and they can, and do, change it at will.  And, so far, the vast majority of the changes have been in the relaxation direction.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And this is the central point.  To bemoan the over-diagnosis of ADHD is an empty, futile exercise.  Given the facts that:

– the criteria are impossibly vague and subjective, and
– pharma makes more money the wider the net is cast, and
– psychiatry shares in these profits through a variety of avenues, and
– the drugs are addictive, and
– schools receive additional funding for every ADHD child on their rolls,

“diagnosis” creep is inevitable.  “Diagnosis” creep is not some accident or some pharma-produced sabotage that has befallen psychiatry despite its best efforts to remain pure and undefiled.  “Diagnosis” creep is an integral component of the monster that psychiatry has consciously and deliberately created.  “Diagnosis” creep is an integral part of psychiatry’s expansionist agenda, and was facilitated enormously by Robert Spitzer’s atheoretical, phenomenological approach in DSM-III (1980).  Though, incidentally, in the case of “ADHD” it was occurring prior to 1980.  Here’s a quote from Ullmann and Krasner’s A psychological Approach to Abnormal Behavior,  Second Edition, (1975):

“The treatment of children who have received the label of ‘hyperactive’ has been a source of further controversy in both psychology and pediatrics…Drug therapy, particularly stimulants such as amphetamines, have become the popular form of treatment including up to 10% of all students in some school districts…” (p 496)

And even then, forty-one years ago, there were clear dissenting voices:

“The label plus the drug treatment brings the child into the mentally ill or sick category and the social and self-labeling that follow…The use of drugs enhances the belief in the efficacy of outside agents rather than attribution of change to one’s own efforts (an important element in the development of self control in children and responsibility in teachers).” (Op. Cit. p 497)

If should also be noted that the relaxation of criteria is not confined to “ADHD”.  DSM-5 also relaxed the APA’s definition of a mental disorder, effectively expanding the net for all their so-called diagnoses.

The definition of a mental disorder in DSM-IV (1994) was:

“… a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom.  In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one.  Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual.  Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as descried above.” (p xxi-xxii)

This definition can, I think, be accurately paraphrased as:  any significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving.  And indeed, it is extremely difficult to think of a significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving that is not listed within DSM.

The definition of a mental disorder in DSM-5 (2013) is similar to that quoted above, but contains additional verbiage, and one enormous relaxation of the definition.  To enable readers to judge this for themselves, here’s the DSM-5 definition:

“A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning.  Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities.  An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder.  Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflicts results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.” (p 20) [Emphasis added]

The word usually on the fourth line expands the potential range of psychiatric “diagnosis” enormously.  One might even say that it becomes so wide as to embrace the entire population.  The point being that in DSM-IV, the problems had to reach a certain level of significance or severity.  But in DSM-5, that requirement was effectively dropped.  Admittedly, both phrases are vague, but DSM-IV’s requirement that distress or disability be present, is obviously a more stringent standard than DSM-5’s assertion that distress or disability is usually present.  In effect, the severity threshold has been abandoned, and there is a clear invitation to practitioners to assign “diagnoses” to individuals with increasingly milder presentations.  And it needs to be stressed that this change was not based on any kind of scientific information or discovery.  This change was simply a decision by the APA to expand the prevalence of their so-called illnesses to virtually everyone on the planet.  It also needs to be stressed that this is not an empty issue, but has already been implemented in the case of “ADHD”.  Compare the severity criterion for ADHD in DSM-IV with that in DSM-5:

DSM-IV:
“D.  There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic or occupational functioning.” (p 84) [Emphasis added]

DSM-5:
“D.  There is clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with , or reduce the quality of, social, academic, or occupational functioning.” (p 60)

Here again, both statements are vague, but significant impairment in… is obviously a tighter standard than interfering with, or reducing the quality of….

Given all of these considerations, it’s extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the APA not only supports the wide expansion of this so-called diagnosis, but has actively pursued and facilitated this expansion for decades.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

CONCLUSION

 Mr. Schwarz has done a good job of exposing pharma’s tactics and strategies.  Although much of this story is well-known and has been told before, he does present the scam in a detailed and readable form.  He also addresses the problem of parents pushing to get their children “diagnosed” and on drugs, and the undeniable fact that people do become addicted to these products.  He also exposes the link between CHADD and pharma.

Perhaps now he can take a look at the even bigger scam:  psychiatry’s spurious and destructive medicalization of literally every problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving, including childhood inattention, impulsivity, and general lack of discipline.

Pharma does indeed push their products using very questionable methods.  But they couldn’t sell a single prescription for methylphenidate or for any other psychiatric drug without psychiatry’s bogus and self-serving “diagnoses”.  And they couldn’t have increased their sales to the extent that they did, without the commensurate relaxation of the “diagnostic” criteria, that psychiatry knowingly and willingly provided.  Bemoaning the use of hurriedly-completed facile checklists is empty talk, unless one is also willing to turn one’s criticism against the DSM’s equally facile “symptom lists”, of which the checklists are simply mirrors.

Psychiatry is nothing more than legalized drug-pushing.  There is not one shred of intellectual or scientific validity to their so-called taxonomy.  They invent these so-called illnesses to expand their turf, and then liberalize the criteria to expand it further.

Under the guise of medical care, they routinely rob people of their sense of competence, their dignity, and in many cases, their lives.  They have radically undermined the concept of success-through-disciplined-effort, and have ensnared millions of people worldwide in their ever-expanding web of drug-induced dependency and self-doubt.  They are not the thoughtful and expert codifiers of genuine illnesses, as Mr. Schwarz contends.  Rather, they are drug-pushing charlatans and hoaxsters who have systematically and deliberately deceived their clients and the general public to enhance their own prestige and their incomes.

If there was ever a subject that called for thorough investigative journalism, psychiatry is it.

About Phil Hickey

I am a licensed psychologist, presently retired. I have worked in clinical and managerial positions in the mental health, corrections, and addictions fields in the United States and England. My wife Nancy and I have been married since 1970 and have four grown children.

 

 

Advertisements

Bob Fiddaman’s New Post : ” Lawsuit Alleges GSK’s Witty Lied to the Media – Part I “…


http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2016/11/lawsuit-alleges-gsks-witty-lied-to.html

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Lawsuit Alleges GSK’s Witty Lied to the Media – Part I

Lawsuit Alleges GSK’s Witty Lied to the Media – Part I  
~ Bob Fiddaman
 

A 42 page complaint was filed on November 15, 2016, by Peter Humphrey and his wife, Yu Yingzeng, in relation to GSK’s nefarious activities in China which saw the pair incarcerated for around 2 years in Chinese slum-like conditions prison cells.

The complaint delves deep into the whole sordid affair and alleges bribery on a huge scale, more importantly, the complaint alleges that GSK hired the services of Humphrey and Yu in efforts to smokescreen the corruption in China, corruption, according to the complaint, that they had known about for many years. Furthermore, the 42 page document alleges that GSK’s CEO, Andrew Witty, lied to the media when he was asked about the corruption in China.

Humphrey and Yingzeng were the founders of ChinaWhys, a professional-services consultancy that specializes in discreet risk mitigation solutions, consulting and investigation services to corporate clients in matters of high sensitivity across Greater China and the Asia Pacific.

On April 15, 2013, Humphrey met with GSK’s Head of Chinese operations, Mark Reilly, April Zhao, GSK China legal counsel and Brian Cahill, also GSK legal counsel. It was at this meeting that Humphrey was told that GSK had been sent a series of emails from a whistleblower alleging widespread corruption – GSK told Humphrey that they believed they knew who the whistleblower was.

Vivian Shi had previously worked for GSK as a government affairs director, GSK had terminated her services with them in December 2012. According to the complaint GSK claimed that Shi had orchestrated a “smear campaign” against GSK involving a total of 23 emails that had been sent to Chinese officials throughout the country, a letter had also been sent to GSK’s ‘top management’ alleging widespread corruption in GSK’s pharmaceutical and vaccine business that had been approved by GSK China’s senior management.

These were allegations brought to Humphreys attention just months after GSK had been fined a record breaking $3 billion by the Department of Justice in America – the fine was handed down after a guilty plea by GSK who, after the settlement, entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services. The agreement requires enhanced accountability, increased transparency and wide- ranging monitoring activities conducted by both internal and independent external reviewers.

One month after meeting with GSK officials Humphrey was told that GSK’s global CEO, Andrew Witty, had been made aware that GSK had been using a travel agent to channel kickback to customers and doctors throughout China. Days after Witty had been made aware, the whistleblower also sent a video to him and other senior management that showed GSK China’s Mark Reilly engaged in sexual activity – Reilly later claimed that the woman in the video was his “regular girlfriend”.

GSK officials told Humphrey that they had launched their own internal inquiry regarding the whistleblower allegation and that they were false. They told Humphrey, “There is nothing there”. This, according to the complaint, was a lie.

Humphrey and his wife offered to investigate the whistleblower allegations but GSK declined the offer, opting instead for Humphrey to investigate Vivian Shi, the woman they believed was the whistleblower.

Two months after Humphrey and Yu started their background search of Vivian Shi, GSK received another letter from the whistleblower alleging that GSK China continues to engage in systematic bribery of doctors, this email focused on GSK China’s botox business whereby the whistleblower claimed that…

GSK had a ‘pay to prescribe’ scheme that funneled money through a central source at Beijing Medical College whereby ‘lecture fee payments’ were made to doctors who could “…incentivize and reward doctors for prescribing Botox.”

At no point did GSK show either Humphrey or Yu this letter.

On June 12, 2013, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) ran an article highlighting GSK China’s massive bribery network. In July of that year 4 senior GSK China executives were arrested and, according to Humphrey’s filed complaint, GSK CEO, Andrew Witty told the worlds media that “…it appears that certain senior executives in the Chinese business have acted outside of our processes and our controls to both defraud the company and Chinese healthcare system.” Witty also claimed that GSK’s Head office in London lacked knowledge of the whistleblower allegations and “had no sense of this issue.”

According to the complaint, this made no sense as since the previous month GSK did, indeed, “have a sense” of the issue since it announced its 4 month internal investigation into allegations of bribery and corruption in China and found “No evidence of corruption or bribery.”

The complaint states…

Witty argued, nonsensically, that the previous whistleblower 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.

The complaint was filed in The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Humphrey and Yu are represented by Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

**Coming in Part 2**
– A full and comprehensive list of the allegations made by Peter Humphrey and Yu.
– GSK ask Humphrey to ‘overtly’ obstruct the Chinese government investigation.
– Evidence, including emails, to be destroyed as not to implicate any wrong-doing by the company.



Bob Fiddaman


Back stories.

Glaxo – The Sex Tape Scandal

GSK’s Mark Reilly Accused of Running a “massive bribery network”

I’m Just a Blogger – Here’s GSK Served on Prawn Crackers

GSK Hiked Product Prices to Fund Bribery Scam

GSK’s Sales Reps Want Their Money Back

GSK’s Private Investigator [The Video]

Peter Humphrey’s 2012 Presentation – Pharma Bribery

GSK’s Chinese Whispers and David Cameron

“GSK were really cagey”, Claims Whitehall Official.

Glaxo Hire Ropes & Gray to Delve Into its Chinese Operations.

GSK CHINA – Bribery was Rife 13 Years Ago

Witty Plays Down China Scandal

Witty Witty Bang Wang. The Glaxo Gangbang…Allegedly

Book Your Holidays With GSK Travel

Andrew Witty… I know narrrrrrrrthing

The Penny Drops for GSK’s Private Investigator.

GSK China Bought Patient’s Silence for $9,000

A Big Welcome To GSK’s New CEO… Emma Walmsley…



GSK welcomed a new CEO today– Emma Walmsley. Emma owns in excess of 200,000 GSK shares, and at £16 quid a share, she’ll be rolling in dough in no time, so you can be sure she’ll be looking after GSK’s interests just as as good as Andrew and JP did… the GSK cash cow’s gotta keep on rolling… never mind the harm drugs such as Seroxat cause vulnerable people… just make damn sure that cash keeps rolling in…

Do you think GSK’s corporate culture is going to change now that a woman is going to be in charge when Mr Witty leaves GSK in 2017?

Simple answer: “money is the root of all evil”…

See Whistleblower Greg Thorpe’s Department of Justice complaint (link below) for a colossal lesson in the meaning of that phrase…

https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/whistleblower-greg-thorpes-7th-ammended-complaint/

cs08sgruaamzipg

Image kindly borrowed from https://twitter.com/NeLLLieBly

GSK CEO, Andrew Witty Says: “Occassionally We Make Mistakes”…


Pharm

“…Then you’ve got actually, we do occasionally make mistakes. Things go wrong. We have inevitably of course, we go through all the processes with the regulators to get a drug to be as safe and effective as it can possibly be. But the reality is, every time a human takes a drug, it’s like a clinical trial. You don’t really know what’s going to happen. Everybody can react a different way…”

I’m sure most people would be familiar with the film ‘The Devils Advocate’ with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves. In the movie, Reeves is groomed into his dark corporate role by the Machiavellian Pacino- his boss and mentor. Unfortunately for Reeves his deal with the devil turns out to be just that.

‘The Devils Advocate’ is of course, a work of fiction, however, if you read though the stories and scandals of GSK over the past decade you could be forgiven for thinking you were reading a work of fiction; such is the scale and depth of GSK’s nefarious and suspect activities.

From tax evasion, dodgy factories spewing out defective and contaminated products, to bribery, fraud, prostitutes in China (and that’s not just the doctors on the payroll), corruption, suppression of side effects of their meds – resulting in killing of consumers, Serious Fraud Office investigations, Department of Justice investigations, pay for delay deals, etc etc.

The list goes on… and on… and on….

GSK are as insidiously and (dare I say it)- as evil – as you would imagine any multi-billion dollar international corporation to be…

But scarily- for you (and for me, and for the public)- GSK are real, they are not fiction and they make your toothpaste such as sensodyne, and your kids drinks like Ribena and Lucozade, as well some some really dodgy drugs like Seroxat, Avandia, Imitrex and Pandemrix…

And lets not forget the barbaric Myodil.

https://truthman30.wordpress.com/tag/splinters/

GSK is recalling dozens of lots–3,977,252 tubes–made up of different varieties of Biotene and Sensodyne toothpaste, from the U.S., Puerto Rico and Taiwan. According to the FDA‘s most recent Enforcement Report, “fragments of wood were found when the product was extruded onto a toothbrush.” The toothpaste was actually manufactured for GSK by Oratech, a Utah-based contractor.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucozade-and-irn-bru-to-carry-hyperactivity-warnings-2034324.html

“….The makers of two of Britain’s best-selling soft drinks, Lucozade and Irn-Bru, have been forced to warn parents that the drinks may cause hyperactivity. A newly introduced EU law compels both drinks to display a warning that they contain artificial colours linked to behavioural problems in young children..”


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/16/seroxat-study-harmful-effects-young-people

“…An influential study which claimed that an antidepressant drug was safe for children and adolescents failed to report the true numbers of young people who thought of killing themselves while on it, re-analysis of the trial has found

Study 329, into the effects of GlaxoSmithKline’s drug paroxetine on under-18s, was published in 2001 and later found to be flawed. In 2003, the UK drug regulator instructed doctors not to prescribe paroxetine – sold as Seroxat in the UK and Paxil in the US – to adolescents…”


http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/05/23/steven-nissen-the-hidden-agenda-behind-the-fdas-avandia-hearings/#67f26f5717a3

“..The most likely explanation: the leadership of the division of the FDA responsible for drug regulation, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), is seeking to avoid accountability for its role in the Avandia tragedy. In 2005 and 2006, GSK secretly conducted an analysis of the cardiovascular safety of Avandia and concluded that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks and related events by about 30%. This observation had grave implications: two thirds of diabetics, the intended recipients of the drug, eventually die of cardiovascular complications. Initially, GSK withheld the internal analysis from the FDA, but in 2006, the company informed CDER of the findings. FDA statisticians confirmed the risks, but, incredibly, CDER and GSK agreed privately to conceal this hazard from patients and practitioners…”

So be very careful when you ingest a GSK product because GSK are notoriously known for not telling you the truth about the products they sell you…

And even if the GSK label says the side effects are blah, blah, blah… don’t rely on them to be honest in the PIL either..  they often omit a lot of the truth..  they are notorious for lying and deceiving, often adding side effects (for years later) to their products’ information leaflets- long after millions of people have ingested them…

It’s easy to say, GSK are greedy, sociopathic, evil and callous, and they are (because most multi-billion dollar corporations are- they have to be because capitalism encourages them to be). However, it’s also easy to forget that GSK are a corporation run by people making the decisions for the company.

So could we then apply the same characteristics of greedy, sociopathic, evil and callous to the people running GSK?

Perhaps, in some cases, justifiably we can..

Take for example  (outgoing) GSK CEO Andrew Witty…

Before he was crowned CEO of GSK, Witty had worked in a number of roles in the company- many of them high level.

Witty once promoted the highly controversial Zyban (an anti-smoking drug)-  (also known as  Wellbutrin and promoted as an anti-depressant):

LONDON, UK — January 16, 2007

“Wellbutrin XR is an important new medicine for doctors and patients in Europe,” comments Andrew Witty, president, GSK Pharmaceuticals, Europe.

“Depression can be a crippling condition that is often difficult to treat.

With its unique mode of action, Wellbutrin XR offers a real alternative to the depressed patient.

We hope its profile will help patients stay on their therapy, which would address a significant unmet need in the area of antidepressants.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2016/mar/17/glaxosmithkline-gsk-andrew-witty-neil-woodford-break-up

“…It is even hard to say who is the leading candidate within the core pharmaceutical business. Is it Abbas Hussain, head of the division, or Patrick Vallance, head of research and development? And perhaps Emma Walmsley, boss of consumer healthcare, a bigger unit after being beefed via a shuffle of assets with Novartis, is a decent outside bet….”

So how much did JP Garnier and Andrew Witty know about GSK’s bad behavior over the years they spent crawling up the greasy ladder within the company?

I’d say they knew a lot..

There is a rumor that that the next head of GSK might be Emma Walmsley..

I wonder what price you have to put on your soul to become CEO of a company like GSK?

“John Milton:..You sharpen the human appetite to the point where it can split atoms with its desire; you build egos the size of cathedrals; fiber-optically connect the world to every eager impulse; grease even the dullest dreams with these dollar-green, gold-plated fantasies, until every human becomes an aspiring emperor, becomes his own God… and where can you go from there? As we’re scrambling from one deal to the next, who’s got his eye on the planet? As the air thickens, the water sours, even bees’ honey takes on the metallic taste of radioactivity… and it just keeps coming, faster and faster. There’s no chance to think, to prepare; it’s buy futures, sell futures… when there is no future. We got a runaway train, boy. We got a billion Eddie Barzoons all jogging into the future. Every one of them is getting ready to fistfuck God’s ex-planet, lick their fingers clean, as they reach out toward their pristine, cybernetic keyboards to tote up their fucking billable hours. And then it hits home. You got to pay your own way”..

 

(Al Pacino/John Milton- “The Devils Advocate”)

Emma-Walmsley

CH7YOanVAAANoD3

http://fortune.com/most-powerful-women-europe-middle-east-africa/emma-walmsley-24/

The London-based pharma exec runs the world’s leading over-the-counter pharma company—a $9.5 billion joint venture between GSK and its Swiss competitor Novartis, officially launched in March. Walmsley led the integration of the businesses, which resulted from a complex deal struck in April 2014. The company’s products are sold in 160 countries, with 42% of sales coming from emerging markets. In July, Walmsley, a lover of Italian red wine and Bikram yoga, was appointed to the board of Diageo. —Erika Fry

Who Will Replace His Royal-Ness Andrew Witty At GSK?


It seems to be that GSK just replace one sociopath with another..

I can just imagine the interview process for CEO…

We’ve had JP Garnier (he was a very good sociopath), then we had Witty (who was arguably even better).. very convincing , very slick…

Who next?

I bet it’s something like a tick the boxes ‘sociopath’ checklist for the selected candidates…

Something like this perhaps?…


2960020302001

 

 

 


http://news.sky.com/story/1661575/woodford-demands-outsider-to-take-gsk-helm

Woodford Demands Outsider To Take GSK Helm

The high-profile fund manager tells Sky News a “fresh pair of eyes” is needed to replace Sir Andrew Witty at GSK.

10:58, UK, Thursday 17 March 2016

GlaxoSmithKline Chief Executive Andrew Witty poses with his medal after being honoured with a Knighthood by Prince Charles

Sir Andrew Witty poses after being honoured with a knighthood

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.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-17/glaxo-chief-executive-witty-plans-to-step-down-next-year

GlaxoSmithKline CEO Andrew Witty to Retire in March 2017
Marthe Fourcade
Ketaki Gokhale
KetakiGokhale
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.

Andrew Witty
Andrew Witty
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.”
Right Time

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.
Avoiding Deals

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.
Fresh Board

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.

Is Glaxo Looking To Replace Andrew Witty As CEO?


GlaxoSmithKline begins search for new ceo to succeed embattled Sir Andrew Witty as investors call for drugs giant to be split up

GlaxoSmithKline has kicked off the search for a chief executive to succeed embattled Sir Andrew Witty.

With the drugs giant facing pressure from powerful shareholders, it is understood the board has started succession planning.

Witty, who was paid £3.9million in 2014, joined Glaxo in 1985 and took over as chief executive in May 2008 after Jean-Pierre Garnier retired.

Under pressure:  GlaxoSmithKline boss is looking for a new boss to replace Sir Andrew Witty (pictured)

Under pressure:  GlaxoSmithKline boss is looking for a new boss to replace Sir Andrew Witty (pictured)

His future is in the hands of chairman Sir Philip Hampton, the former Royal Bank of Scotland chairman who took the helm in May.

Disturbing, Revealing, And Absurd, Interview With Andrew Witty, The CEO Of GlaxoSmithKline..


Page_1


Andrew Witty

“Things go wrong. We have inevitably – of course, we go through all the processes with the regulators to get a drug to be as safe and effective as it can possibly be. But the reality is, every time a human takes a drug, it’s like a clinical trial. You don’t really know what’s going to happen.

Everybody can react a different way. So on the one hand, what is the story of the drug industry? The story of the drug industry is wonder drugs. On the other hand, it’s danger drugs. Those are the two extremes that we have.

It’s kind of unavoidable.”

(Translation: “often we release dangerous drugs like Seroxat and Avandia. We make billions on them and the people that get killed are just collateral damage, some of our drugs and products help people so we make up for the other GSK drug-induced deaths from poisons like Seroxat- that way. It all balances out in the end- we kill some, we help some.. it’s the nature of the pharmaceutical  business and kinda just tough if you get harmed”).

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.”

(translation: “I don’t answer questions about our criminal behavior”)


Andrew Witty Sociopath


Mr Witty, “I think the bigger question” is: are you- and is your company-sociopathic?

It’s not often that we get to see the CEO of one of the biggest (and notably most corrupt) pharmaceutical companies on the planet (GSK) squirm like a little snake in an interview. Usually someone like Andrew Witty would have no fear of being asked awkward questions about fraud, bribery or corruption in interviews. Usually, Sir Witty would expect nothing short of the red carpet treatment from the media who court people like him. However, in the last seven minutes, of a recent interview between the BBC’s Evan Davis and Andrew Witty, the unethical behavior, of his company GSK, comes under intense scrutiny.

It’s important to note that under Andrew Witty’s tenure as CEO of GSK (since 2008), as recently as last year (2014) the company has been caught operating a massive bribery network in China, and the company is also under several investigations spanning several other countries for similar corruption allegations, and has been for some years now.  In 2012 GSK paid 3 billion to settle the biggest health care fraud in US history. There is also the issue of an ongoing serious Serious Fraud Office UK investigation and many other ethical issues concerning GSK’s unethical shenanigans which have yet to be resolved. These issues, serious though they are, don’t even touch upon the other GSK issues which affect people’s lives directly in horrible damaging ways- such as kids developing Narcolepsy from GSK’s Pandemrix, or kids dying from GSK’s notorious Seroxat (Paxil) drug.

GSK have been killing and harming consumers for decades.

Witty knows this, he just doesn’t care, because he is paid millions to care about GSK. His self interest, and the company’s self interest, values the profitability of GSK above human life, ethics and morality. That is the essence of his several minutes of uncomfortable avoidance in this fascinating interview.  Our lives mean nothing to him, he more or less said that in this interview. He said it’s “kind of unavoidable’.  What’s unavoidable? That people get killed and damaged? What is he saying- “tough shit- your life means nothing?” What’s unavoidable Andrew? That you corrupt psychiatrists, doctors? That your company lies about side effects of its drugs which leads to deaths?

He sees us (the public) as collateral damage. That much is clear.

As one of the direct casualties of GSK’s defective and dangerous drugs (Seroxat), I have to admit, I find it satisfying to see the CEO responsible for Seroxat, asked uncomfortable questions about GSK’s criminal behavior. His responses though, could be perceived as a master-class in how to avoid and deflect uncomfortable questions, however, despite his obvious skills in avoidance I think Witty comes across very badly in this video clip for a number of reasons.

His body language speaks volumes, when asked the first uncomfortable question at the beginning of this video, and when it’s obvious that the tone of the interview is about to change dramatically, Witty suddenly looks visibly annoyed, tense, fidgety, and uncomfortable. His squirming demeanor, followed by a big gulp, bowed head, contortions in his seat, and shameful expression, speak to me of a man who knows exactly how badly his company has behaved. I’d say he knows it all too well.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t stop him doing what he is paid (millions of pounds) to do: defend the company at all costs.

This is his own personal, ethical and moral weakness (he just doesn’t realize it).

(You’re defending the indefensible Witty- you sold your soul to GSK in 1985).

I don’t think that Witty was successful at all in this interview.

He doesn’t seem to realize that ‘normal’ (non sociopathic) people find it disturbing when they hear people trying to attempt the defend the indefensible.

I think he would have been better off being humble and apologizing for GSK’s widespread and well known criminality over the decades. Trying to pretend it didn’t really happen and is all just some kind of misconception is just an insult to people, we all know it did, there are hundreds documents and articles online, and on this blog, which detail GSKs vast and extensive criminality. People aren’t stupid, and the internet has documented all of GSK’s behavior now, no amount of deflection can argue with the facts…

The second video is taken from a recent interview from an Australian news piece with Jon Jureidini, a child psychiatrist from the university of Adelaide, who was also part of a RIAT team who re-assessed a GSK study (study 329) which came to the conclusion that GSK’s Seroxat (Aropax/Paxil) drug has harmed (and killed) many thousands of teens since it was first pushed on kids in the late 90’s.

GSK’s corporate spokesperson, Bernadette Murdoch, seems to have no problem coming out in defense of the indefensible. Similar to Witty, she tries to muddy the water with red-herring statements that are both meaningless, and also an insult, to all those who died, or were harmed, by GSK’s Seroxat (Paxil/Aropax) drug over the past few decades.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…

How do these corporate executives sleep at night?

Are they just sociopaths?

Do they not possess consciences?

(Kudos To Bob Fiddaman Of Seroxat Sufferers Blog for finding this video – see his post on it here)


For Recent news on GSK’s Dangerous Seroxat drug see here-

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/16/seroxat-study-harmful-effects-young-people

“This is a very high rate of kids going on to become suicidal. It doesn’t take expertise to find this. It takes extraordinary expertise to avoid finding it.”

In an article published with the re-analysis, Peter Doshi, associate editor of the BMJ, said the new paper “has reignited calls for retraction of the original study, putting additional pressure on academic and professional institutions to publicly address the many allegations of wrongdoing.”

He said few trials had been as controversial as study 329, whose lead author was Martin Keller from Brown University. In 2002, the year after its publication, the US Food and Drug Administration said it should be considered a failed trial because the depressed adolescents taking the drug did no better than those on placebo.

In that same year, more than two million prescriptions for paroxetine were written for adolescents and children in the United States, on the back of an advertising campaign which claimed the trial had shown “remarkable efficacy and safety”.

GSK was fined $3bn in 2012 for fraudulently promoting the drug.


For further reading on GSK’s China bribery scandal see here-

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29274822

China has fined UK pharmaceuticals firm GlaxoSmithKline $490m (£297m) after a court found it guilty of bribery.

The record penalty follows allegations the drug giant paid out bribes to doctors and hospitals in order to have their products promoted.

The court gave GSK’s former head of Chinese operations, Mark Reilly, a suspended three-year prison sentence and he is set to be deported.

Other GSK executives have also been given suspended jail sentences.


Sir Andrew Witty GSK: CEO accountability selectively enforced?


Very interesting comparison..

A former user of Avandia (GSK’s heart attack inducing Diabetes drug) asks an important question…

How come Andrew Witty is never held to account for anything that GSK does?

Including the Avandia scandal and the Seroxat scandal- which killed, harmed and maimed many people, where is the accountability? Why is the department of Justice not investigating GSK breaking their corporate integrity agreement? and when will we see the results of the SFO (Serious Fraud Office) investigation into GSK in the UK bear fruit?

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20151009/opinion/151009503

    
    • CEO accountability selectively enforced

    • Posted Oct. 9, 2015 at 2:01 AM

      So the U.S. Department of Justice says it could seek to hold individual Volkswagen executives accountable for that corporation’s emissions testing scandal — but it’s done nothing to GlaxoSmithKline CEO Andrew Witty for premeditated poisoning for profit with the drug Avandia.

      As a victim of this insidious drug, I am appalled at the selective punishment of CEOs by the Justice Department. I guess my life is not as important as car fumes.

      The time has come for President Obama to get off the world stage and start protecting “we the people” at home!

      Paul G. Redlund

      Orleans

    I Am Fish Head: Brilliant Documentary On The Sociopaths/Psychopaths That Run Our Modern World


    dc0f60d0-c53a-11e1-940d-00144feabdc0 gsk5

    “A fish rots from the head down”

    (scroll up to 30 mins for the section on anti-depressants)

    https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2015/07/03/the-us-department-of-justice-legal-complaint-against-gsk-2012/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/psychopath-jon-ronson-ceo-traits-2015-5?r=US&IR=T


    We talked to Jon Ronson, author of New York Times bestseller “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry,” about which specific personality traits you should look for when trying to spot a psychopath.


    June 14, 2011 @ 1:46 PM 230,143 views
    Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs
    Jeff Bercovici , Forbes Staff Author Jon Ronson.
    Photo credit: Barney Poole
    British journalist Jon Ronson immersed himself in the world of mental health diagnosis and criminal profiling to understand what makes some people psychopaths — dangerous predators who lack the behavioral controls and tender feelings the rest of us take for granted. Among the things he learned while researching his new book, “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry”: the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large. I spoke with him recently about what that means and its implications for the business world and wider society. Are we really to understand that there’s some connection between what makes people psychopaths and what makes them CEO material? At first I was really skeptical because it seemed like an easy thing to say, almost like a conspiracy theorist’s type of thing to say. I remember years and years ago a conspiracy theorist telling me the world was ruled by blood-drinking, baby-sacrificing lizards.
    These psychologists were essentially saying the same thing.
    Basically, when you get them talking, these people [ie. psychopaths] are different than human beings. They lack the things that make you human: empathy, remorse, loving kindness. So at first I thought this might just be psychologists feeling full of themselves with their big ideological notions. But then I met Al Dunlap. [That would be “Chainsaw” Al Dunlap, former CEO of Sunbeam and notorious downsizer.] He effortlessly turns the psychopath checklist into “Who Moved My Cheese?” Many items on the checklist he redefines into a manual of how to do well in capitalism. There was his reputation that he was a man who seemed to enjoy firing people, not to mention the stories from his first marriage — telling his first wife he wanted to know what human flesh tastes like, not going to his parents’ funerals. Then you realize that because of this dysfunctional capitalistic society we live in those things were positives. He was hailed and given high-powered jobs, and the more ruthlessly his administration behaved, the more his share price shot up. So you can just go down the list of Fortune 500 CEOs and say, “psychopath, psychopath, psychopath…” Well, no. Dunlap was an exceptional figure, wasn’t he? An extreme figure.
    I think my book offers really good evidence that the way that capitalism is structured really is a physical manifestation of the brain anomaly known as psychopathy. However, I wouldn’t say every Fortune 500 chief is a psychopath. That would turn me into an ideologue and I abhor ideologues. Is it an either/or thing? It seems to me, thinking about it, that a lot of the traits on the checklist would be be useful in a corporate ladder-climbing situation. So maybe there are a lot of CEOs who simply have some psychopathic tendencies.
    It is a spectrum, but there’s a cutoff point. If you’re going by the Hare checklist [the standard inventory used in law enforcement, devised by leading researcher Robert Hare], where the top score is 40, the average anxiety-ridden business failure like me — although the fact that my book just made the Times best sellers list makes it difficult to call myself that — would score a 4 or 5. Somebody you have to be wary of would be in early 20s and a really hard core damaged person, a really dangerous psychopath, would score around a 30. In law the cutoff is 29.
    There are absolutes in psychopathy and the main absolute is a literal absence of empathy. It’s just not there. In higher-scoring psychopaths, what grows in the vacant field where that empathy should be is a joy in manipulating people, a lack of remorse, a lack of guilt. If you’ve got a little bit of empathy, you’re kind of not a psychopath.

    Prescription for Glaxo: A New Boss? (Bloomberg)


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/prescription-for-glaxo-a-new-boss-

    628x-1

    5:01 AM BST
    May 5, 2015

    Incoming Chairman Of GlaxoSmithKline Plc Philip Hampton

    Incoming Chairman Of GlaxoSmithKline Plc Philip Hampton, is no stranger to big challenges or high-profile roles. He led the board at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc after the biggest taxpayer bailout in U.K. history.
    Incoming Chairman Of GlaxoSmithKline Plc Philip Hampton, is no stranger to big challenges or high-profile roles. He led the board at Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc after the biggest taxpayer bailout in U.K. history. Photographer: Jason Alden/Bloomberg

    Philip Hampton is taking over as chairman of GlaxoSmithKline Plc as Chief Executive Officer Andrew Witty struggles to win back investors’ favor.

    Witty, who’s led Britain’s largest drugmaker since 2008, is facing criticism for Glaxo’s lagging share performance and a depleted pipeline of promising medicines. A bribery scandal in China that led to a $489 million fine last year and sluggish U.S. sales also eroded support.

    “Mr. Witty is running out of time,” said Stephen Bailey, a fund manager at Liontrust Asset Management Plc in London, which holds Glaxo shares. “He’s either got to deliver in the next 12 months or step aside.”

    Hampton, 61, previously led the board of Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, where he presided over some 90,000 job cuts and a partial dismantling of the firm following the U.K.’s biggest bank bailout. Before that, he oversaw a turnaround as chairman of retailer J Sainsbury Plc.

    He replaces Christopher Gent as Glaxo’s chairman on Thursday, a day after the company reports first-quarter results and holds a meeting for investors. Both Hampton and Witty declined to be interviewed through Glaxo’s press office.

    Glaxo is trailing its 11 biggest rivals in annual revenue growth, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Its stock sank 7 percent in the past year, compared with a 30 percent increase in the Bloomberg Europe Pharmaceuticals Index. Only about a quarter of analysts rate Glaxo a buy.

    Building Value

    Hampton joins as Witty, 50, is undertaking the biggest reorganization since the merger that created Glaxo 15 years ago. He sold its 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.

    The deals bring more predictable revenue and lessen Glaxo’s dependence on patented drugs, where sales suffer when generic substitutes reach the market. They also turn the London-based giant away from drug development at a time when investors are embracing it, said Bailey. “That’s where you can add value and build value,” he added.
    GlaxoSmithKline Plc CEO Andrew Witty

    GlaxoSmithKline Plc Chief Executive Officer Andrew Witty. Under Witty, Glaxo settled a marketing probe in the U.S. by paying a $3 billion fine in 2011, and a bribery investigation in China that concluded last year with a $489 million penalty.

    Hampton will have to evaluate the performance of Witty and other senior executives, as any new chairman would, and won’t act rashly, said Justin King, who served as CEO of Sainsbury during Hampton’s tenure as chairman.
    Pragmatic Approach

    He’ll also have to recruit directors at Glaxo, where at least three will leave in the next 18 months. At Edinburgh – based RBS, where he served as chairman starting in 2009, Hampton revamped the board after nine members left in his first year.

    In interviews with three board members and executives who worked with Hampton at Sainsbury and RBS, he was described as inquisitive, pragmatic, and down to earth.

    “He’s not the slightest bit interested in the trappings of office,” King said. It’s no coincidence Hampton finds himself running companies in trouble, he added. “He has the appetite for challenge — he’s not a sinecure kind of guy.”

    Hampton should reinvest in research at Glaxo, which is failing to produce drugs capable of boosting earnings, said Laura Foll, a fund manager at Henderson Global Investors Ltd. in London, which owns about 7.6 million shares in Glaxo.
    Chart: Glaxo’s Bleak Prognosis

    Profits are still tied to the aging asthma drug, Advair, while demand for two new respiratory medicines, Breo and Anoro, remains sluggish. The company is considering a spinoff of its HIV medicines, although it has few compounds capable of replacing them. Foll recommends cutting the dividend to fund research, a move some investors might resist.
    Leading Change

    Glaxo paid out 3.8 billion pounds ($5.7 billion) to shareholders last year, the most among major pharma companies relative to their market capitalization. It also pledged to return 4 billion pounds in proceeds from the Novartis deal to shareholders.

    Shares of Glaxo have recovered some ground after the worst annual performance in more than a decade in 2014. The stock rose 10 percent so far this year after sales in the U.S. stabilized and the company in December announced 900 job cuts in North Carolina as part of 1 billion pounds in cost reductions.

    Even so, Hampton’s appointment should be the catalyst for a re-examination of strategy, Foll said.

    “There needs to be some sort of change — whether that’s under a new management team or not,” she said. “Phil Hampton may be able to lead the change from the top.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/11456163/Rainmaker-A-new-chairman-may-help-sugar-the-pills-for-GSK.html

    When Sir Philip Hampton was named as the new chairman at GlaxoSmithKline, investors breathed a sigh of relief. After last year’s annus horribilis they wanted a fresh pair of hands to steer Britain’s biggest drug manufacturer.

    Having had a seat at boardrooms including Sainsbury’s, Lloyds, British Gas, BT and latterly the Royal Bank of Scotland, Hampton is donning a white coat to tour GSK’s laboratories in an attempt to learn about the sprawling company.

    He will start in May with a lot on his plate. Last year, GSK was fined a record £297m by Chinese authorities for its part in a huge bribery scandal. Hampton’s experience of highly regulated industries will no doubt help navigate the groups’ reputational challenges in Asia, but there are potentially even bigger issues lurking.

    A boardroom shake-up might be a first course of business, industry sources suggest. Board members Tom de Swaan and Jing Ulrich have already signalled they are stepping down.

    But questions are beginning to be asked of the chief executive, Andrew Witty, who has been at the helm throughout the slowing sales and bribery controversies.

    Witty has resisted calls to stand down and instead agreed to take a bonus cut two years running. But there are growing suggestions that he is on borrowed time.

    Sources believe that while he is a dynamic character, and has overseen some impressive deals including the $20bn (£13bn) asset-swap with Novartis, there aren’t many rabbits left for him to pull out of the hat.

    %d bloggers like this: