So now GSK have moved some of their unethical marketing practices down under it seems..
Investigated for 4 years over Seroxat harming kids in the UK, and a an ongoing serious fraud office investigation there too (and accusations of fraud in several middle eastern countries and eastern European ones)- not to mention being fined 500 dollars in the biggest bribery scandal in China in 2014, and also their 2012 fine of 3 Billion in the US (biggest health care fraud of the time) it seems that GSK has now turned to the countries of the southern hemisphere to continue its fraudulent practices?…
Fair play to Australia for not tolerating GSK’s nefarious conduct..
Australia sues GSK and Novartis over ‘misleading’ marketing Watchdog takes local units to court in crackdown on pharmaceutical sector
Australia’s consumer watchdog is taking the Australian subsidiaries of GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis to court over alleged false or misleading marketing of their pain relief gels. The action is part of a crackdown on “misleading representations” across the pharmaceutical sector by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Last year Reckitt Benckiser, the UK consumer goods group, was fined a record A$6m by an Australian court for making misleading claims about Nurofen, the pain relief drug.
The ACCC’s case against GSK and Novartis centres on what it alleges are “false or misleading representations” claims in the marketing of Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel pain relief products. It alleges the companies marketed Osteo Gel as specifically formulated for treating osteoarthritis conditions and more effective than Emulgel, when the products had identical formulations. “We allege that consumers are likely to have been misled into purchasing Osteo Gel thinking that it is different to Emulgel and more effective for treating osteoarthritis conditions, when this is not the case,” said Rod Sims, ACCC chairman. The ACCC found that Osteo Gel was “sold at a significant price premium to Emulgel”, and alleges that the companies engaged in a deliberate commercial strategy to differentiate the products in a manner to mislead consumers. In price sampling at supermarkets and pharmacies, the ACCC found that Osteo Gel cost as much as 33 per cent more than Emulgel.
“The alleged conduct is particularly concerning, given the significant penalties handed down by the court against the makers of Nurofen for what we consider to be similar conduct,” said Mr Sims. Last year the ACCC successfully sued Reckitt Benckiser for misleading consumers over Nurofen’s painkilling effects, in a legal case and penalty that represented a blow to pharma groups that use branding and marketing to increase sales of medicines. Days after the Australian court ruling, the British Advertising Standards Authority began its own investigation into the marketing of Nurofen in the UK. GSK said it was disappointed by the ACCC legal action.
“Our intention in marketing certain products around symptoms is to help consumers choose a product containing an appropriate active ingredient for their condition from the vast array of options available,” it said in a statement.
“In response to new guidance from the ACCC around expectations of industry regulators and consumers, we proactively made changes” to the packaging of Voltaren Osteo Gel to make it clearer that the formulation is the same as Voltaren Emulgel, GSK added. “We continue to co-operate with the ACCC.” GSK acquired Novartis’s Voltaren products in 2016 and has since been responsible for marketing and selling the products. Novartis said it was aware of the proceedings but directed queries to GSK. “As the ACCC has stated, in 2016 GSK acquired Novartis’s portfolio of Voltaren products and has been responsible for marketing and selling Voltaren products since that time,” Novartis said. The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, a publication order, a compliance programme and costs against the companies.
An interesting case is brewing in Ireland over GSK’s Narcolepsy inducing vaccine- Pandemrix. It will be interesting to see how the case unfolds, and to what extent the Irish regulator (formerly- IMB- now the HPRA) and GSK, knew (or were aware), of the risks involved with Pandemrix.
Pandemrix was over sold, over-prescribed and over-hyped. There was really no need for these mass vaccinations at the time, but GSK made a tidy profit from it, they hyped it to the max and used every ounce of their power to promote it- and the public were used as guinea pigs.
This is typical GSK behavior, as can be seen from their Seroxat and Avandia debacles of past years, and perhaps also illustrated by their Tafenoquine human guinea pig experiments of the present.
Pandemrix is yet another useless GSK poison that was rushed to market on dodgy ‘evidence’ of effectiveness.
GSK are truly the Global Serial Killers.
Woman suing State over swine flu jab is one of 70 cases initiated
Kildare woman says she suffered narcolepsey and fainting fits after getting Pandemrix vaccine
Signs posted in Dublin Airport in 2009 warning about swine flu. Photograph: Frank Miller
An action by a woman who claims she suffered narcolepsy after receiving the swine flu vaccine is among 70 cases initiated here over the vaccine.
Aoife Bennett is among those suing the Minister for Health, the HSE and Glaxosmithkline (GSK) Biologicals S.A in the High Court over being given the Pandemrix vaccine against “human swine flu” in the period 2009-2010.
Her case was before the Master of the High Court on Thursday when he granted a preliminuiary application to join the Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA), formerly the Irish Medicines Board (IMB), as a defendant.
Ms Bennett, from Naas, Co Kildare, claims she suffered injuries including narcolepsey and cataplexy disorder, fainting fits, as a result of being given Pandemrix in 2009.
The application to join the HPRA came after her lawyers discovered information about the vaccine’s safety records furnished by GSK in 2009-10 to the then IMB.
The IMB, which became the HPRA in 2014, is a State body whose role is to protect and enhance public health by regulating medical products.
It is alleged the safety reports show a “particularly striking” difference between the number of adverse effects in those given Pandemrix and a similar vaccine also made by GSK.
Had parents been aware of the “vast difference” in the numbers of people who had adverse effects from the respective vaccines, they would not have given their consent to the administration of Pandemrix to their children, it is claimed.
As a result of the documents, Ms Bennett claims the HPRA owes a duty of care to persons given Pandemrix, including relating to how the safety and appropriateness of the vaccine was monitored.
‘Breach of duties’
She alleges that the manner in which the HPRA performed its functions breached those duties.
William Binchy BL, instructed by solicitor Gillian O’Connor, for Ms Bennett secured permission from Master Edmund Honohan to add the HPRA as a defendant.
In a sworn statement seeking to have the authority joined, Ms O’Connor said the application followed examination of 4,500 documents discovered to the plaintiff by GSK.
The HPRA was not represented at Thursday’s hearing but, in her sworn statement, Ms O’Connor said it has said in correspondence the board would not be admitting any culpability in the matter.
Ms O’Connor said the discovery process had revealed the IMB had data concerning the safety records of Pandemrix which is made in Dresden, Germany and a very similar vaccine also used to treat swine flu made in Quebec, Canada, called Arepanrix.
There are some differences in the manufacturing processes between Quebec and Dresden, Ms O’Connor said.
The safety records show the level of adverse effects in those administered Pandemrix ranged between 10 and 7 times higher than the Canadian made product, she said.
One report from late 2009 stated, of the tens of millions of vaccines administered, there was a serious adverse effect rate of 75.9 per million for Pandemrix compared to 7.9 per million for Arepanrix. The type of adverse effects listed in the reports range from conditions such as convulsions, facial palsy, to stillbirth and fatal outcomes in those who got the vaccines, she said.
Ms O’Connor said the discovered material did not indicate the IMB made the information it had received available to the Minister or the HSE immediately after it was received, or at all.
A representative of the IMB attended all meetings of the National Public Health Emergency Team, which was set up by the Department of Health to oversee the administration of pandemic vaccines, she said.
While discovery is awaited on those meetings, no minutes were recorded regarding adverse effects of Pandemrix at meetings to monitor and oversee the swine flue virus, she said.
A HSE brochure issued to the public in 2009 about swine flu contained information to the effect it was safe to use Pandemrix, it had been appropriately tested and side effects were rare.
Mrs O’Connor said the reality, which she said was known to the Irish Medicines Board, was not all the conclusions contained in the brochure were warranted. Pandemrix was not adequately tested on children and young people before it was licensed, she said.