I’m going to make a prediction about this..
I think that the UK Serious Fraud Office will either let GSK off the hook completely (due to some technicality of law or loop-hole) or GSK will get off very lightly (a slap on the wrist). Either way, I would be extremely surprised if justice is adequately served.
In a just world, one where corporations like GSK don’t get to operate above the law- the top executives at GSK would all be in jail. However we don’t live in a just world, we love in a corporate driven world, one where corporations get to decide on what laws they can break at a whim, with little consequence from the establishment or the authorities.
It will be interesting to see whether the serious fraud office in the UK has the balls, or even the power, to bring the GSK Goliath to book…
Judging from past examples, of GSK criminality, I won’t hold my breath…
They are the UK’s prized Pharma Cash-cow…
Too many people, in places of power, are generating too much wealth from this cash cow for it- to ever be -put out to pasture…
UK fraud office expects decision on GSK, Rolls-Royce cases next year
LONDON (Reuters) – The UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said on Thursday it expects to decide next year whether it will file criminal charges in bribery investigations related to drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK.L) and aero engine company Rolls-Royce (RR.L).
The SFO launched an investigation into GSK and its subsidiaries in 2014. Britain’s biggest drugmaker has already been fined a record 3 billion yuan ($452 million) by Chinese authorities for paying bribes to doctors to use its drugs.
The SFO’s continued investigation into Rolls-Royce is focusing on individuals after the aero engine maker paid 671 million pounds ($870 million) in January to settle British, U.S. and Brazilian bribery investigations.
David Green, the head of the SFO, told Reuters in an interview that he hoped a decision about charges would be made before he steps down after six years in the job next April.
“I would expect resolution in both these cases in 2018, and hopefully prior to my departure in April,” he said.
Separately, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office, which is responsible for SFO director appointments, said the recruitment process for Green’s successor had yet to begin. But she said there was “still plenty of time” and that there “will be an appointment in due course”.
Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party pledged in May to abolish the specialist investigator and prosecutor and roll it into the four-year-old National Crime Agency (NCA) to “strengthen Britain’s response to white collar crime”.
But the proposal drew sharp criticism from white collar crime lawyers, lawmakers and anti-corruption groups and was later dropped from the minority government’s official two-year policy program.
Lawyers said the omission could signal a reprieve for the agency, which in June charged Barclays (BARC.L), one of the country’s biggest banks, and four former senior executives with fraud over undisclosed payments to Qatari investors in 2008.
The royal college of psychiatry UK would have you believe that anti-depressants are nothing but a positive thing for mental health patients. They’d have you believe that these pills are relatively harmless, mostly effective, and that the benefits outweigh the risks. They’d like you to think that SSRI’s are ‘saving lives’ and ‘helping millions’. They don’t want you to know that some people might become homicidal, aggressive, volatile or even commot murder because of them.
They don’t want you to know the truth, because the truth about side effects undermines the psychiatric profession and its ideology and power (and we can’t have that now can we?).
Well, the website Antidepaware does want you to know the truth about SSRI’s, check out the new post from the Antidepaware website here…
On Wednesday July 26th, BBC showed a thoughtful, well-researched Panorama documentary called A Prescription for Murder?. The programme was directed and introduced by Shelley Jofre (left), who, several years ago, exposed The Secrets of Seroxat.
Most of the recent documentary was devoted to the so-called “Batman killer” James Holmes (right), a neuroscience graduate who shot dead 12 people and injured 70 in a Colorado cinema in 2012. He had been taking the SSRI antidepressant Sertraline (Zoloft), along with Clonazepam, a benzodiazepine.
Katinka, who was one of the principal researchers on the Panorama documentary, was the author of The Pill That Steals Lives. At its launch a year ago, I was privileged to have met David Carmichael, who had travelled from Canada.
In 2004 David (right), who had never shown any symptoms of psychosis before being prescribed Seroxat, strangled his 11-year-old son Ian. He was judged to be “not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder” for murdering his son and, in 2009, he received an absolute discharge. Caroline Scott’s interview with David was published in the Daily Mail on the day before the documentary was shown.
Another guest at the launch of Katinka’s book was Leonie Fennell, who had travelled from Ireland. In 2009, Leonie’s son, 22-year-old student Shane Clancy (left) fatally stabbed his ex-girlfriend’s new boyfriend, injured two others, then died after stabbing himself 19 times. Shane had no history whatsoever of violence, self-harm or mental instability of any sort. However, a few weeks before the tragedy, Shane had gone to see a doctor as he was feeling low after breaking up with his girlfriend, and was prescribed the antidepressant Citalopram (Celexa). At Shane’s inquest, the jury decided that Citalopram had probably caused Shane’s death and thus rejected a suicide verdict.
Although most of the Panorama documentary was devoted to James Holmes, both David and Leonie appeared in short interviews with Shelley Jofre.
But, before the documentary had even been shown, the Science Media Centre orchestrated a campaign of mis-information and denigration against the programme. Among the psychiatrists enlisted to provide “expert comments” were Allan Young (right) and Carmine Pariante, both of whom have financial links to pharmaceutical companies that make antidepressants. Moreover, the two professors are employed by Kings College, London, which recently welcomed the UK managing director of Pfizer (makers of Sertraline) on to its board.
Another contributor was Wendy Burn (left), the new president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who also wrote an article for The Times, published the morning after the broadcast, entitled “Stop this dangerous scaremongering over antidepressants”.
There was little criticism of the programme after it had actually been shown.
But then, on Twitter, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (@rcpsych) announced that Wendy Burn and Carmine Pariante would be holding an hour-long Q and A session on August 3rd, using the hashtag #ADsMythBuster (right). It seemed as if the college’s intention was to use Twitter to “bust” what they regarded as “myths” surrounding antidepressants.
The questions started to come in well before the session, but no replies were tweeted before the appointed hour.
It wasn’t long before the first myth was busted by Wendy and Carmine. The surprise was that this particular myth had been perpetrated for many years by their colleagues, as well as other prescribers: “The old idea that ADs correct a chemical imbalance in the brain is an over-simplification and we do not support this view.”
I felt optimistic, and asked, to no avail: “Now that you’ve busted the “chemical imbalance” myth, are you going to bust the “no causal link with violence” myth next?”
Alas, it was not to be. This was the nearest we would get to a proper myth buster during the hour. Before long, the assertion that “ADs do have measurable biological effects; increasing new brain cells & reducing stress hormones” produced a number of retorts, both serious and light-hearted, from those who found this quite difficult to believe.
Asked about withdrawal, the reply was: “Not everyone gets withdrawal symptoms. You must come off ADs slowly over 8-12 weeks with support of your doctor.” This response was queried by a participant, who was told: “Everyone is different & you need to plan this with your doctor. Most people are okay with 8-12 weeks to reduce and stop”.
Somebody asked about the best ADs for a mother to use before and after birth and was told: “Preferred choice are SSRIs esp Fluoxetine in pregnancy & Sertraline in breastfeeding”. The questioner was not told that the best option was to avoid antidepressants altogether during this period.
When a question was asked about whether antidepressants can be used to treat bi-polar, the reply was “Yes they can, but preferably with a mood stabiliser”. Aine O’Beirne (left) was quick to retort: “You say use SSRIs to treat Bipolar when SSRIs are one of the causes of Bipolar epidemic”.
To a question about side-effects causing sexual problems, the reply was: “Yes they are common with SSRIs, usually improves but if not discuss with your doctor”.
And when they were asked about the length of treatment, the professors answered: “Patients are taking ADs for longer according to the correct guidelines for treatment & this is a good thing”.
The reply to a question about the record high numbers of antidepressants prescribed was: “We believe it’s because more people are coming forward & reduced stigma – this is a good thing”.
The person who asked about the benefits of taking antidepressants was told: “Sadness improves within days, new studies show that improvement is faster than we originally thought – within weeks”.
And to the person whose antidepressants weren’t working, the answer was: “There are recommended combinations of ADs & other meds for patients who don’t respond”.
To a question about the link with violence, Wendy and Carmime (right) stuck with the ridiculous line: “In adults there is no evidence ADs increase hostility & aggressiveness”. This prompted my question: “Did you actually watch “Panorama” last week?”
I asked several questions, and received replies to two of them. The first, about sanctioning members for not following NICE Guidelines, elicited the response: “The guidelines are guidelines not the law, we encourage people to follow them”.
In the other, I asked “Is it acceptable to compel somebody to take ADs in order to be given sickness benefit?”. The reply, “Nobody should be forced to have any treatment to be given sickness benefit”, gave me encouragement, although this message needs to be passed on to the guilty GPs.
It was obvious that only a small proportion of questions could be answered, but I had a feeling that the more difficult ones were avoided in favour of those for which pre-prepared replies were available.
One of the most frustrated participants was Lucy Johnstone (left), who submitted the three questions that had the most re-tweets, but never received an answer to any of them. Eventually, to the question “Why are rocketing prescribing levels not reducing rates of depression and suicide, if the drugs are effective?”, Lucy commented: “71 retweets & 88 likes. Deserves an answer”.
The following day, the overriding impression was that if the College saw their “MythBuster” session as a PR exercise, then they had failed. The reaction of Fiona French (right), writing in the BMJ, was typical: “The online support community submitted many, many intelligent and probing questions. The responses were few in number and lacking in substance. We were advised that the Royal College ‘thinks’ the benefits of antidepressants outweigh the harms but no supporting evidence was provided.”
I was, in fact, referring to Professor Peter Gøtzsche (top), one of the world’s most knowledgeable and influential professors in this field. In September 2015, I attended a conference in Copenhagen which Peter had organised. The theme of the event was Psychiatric drugs do more harm than good. I wouldn’t have expected the Pharma-influenced Royal College of Psychiatrists to agree, but the arguments were compelling.
In January 2014, Dr David Healy (left) published an article on his website which Peter had written, and in which he blew apart 10 myths that GSK, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, etc would like us to believe. Here is Peter’s article:
At the Nordic Cochrane Centre, we have researched antidepressants for several years and I have long wondered why leading professors of psychiatry base their practice on a number of erroneous myths. These myths are harmful to patients. Many psychiatrists are well aware that the myths do not hold and have told me so, but they don’t dare deviate from the official positions because of career concerns.
Being a specialist in internal medicine, I don’t risk ruining my career by incurring the professors’ wrath and I shall try here to come to the rescue of the many conscientious but oppressed psychiatrists and patients by listing the worst myths and explain why they are harmful.
Myth 1: Your disease is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain
Most patients are told this but it is completely wrong. We have no idea about which interplay of psychosocial conditions, biochemical processes, receptors and neural pathways that lead to mental disorders and the theories that patients with depression lack serotonin and that patients with schizophrenia have too much dopamine have long been refuted. The truth is just the opposite. There is no chemical imbalance to begin with, but when treating mental illness with drugs, we create a chemical imbalance, an artificial condition that the brain tries to counteract.
This means that you get worse when you try to stop the medication. An alcoholic also gets worse when there is no more alcohol but this doesn’t mean that he lacked alcohol in the brain when he started drinking.
The vast majority of doctors harm their patients further by telling them that the withdrawal symptoms mean that they are still sick and still need the medication. In this way, the doctors turn people into chronic patients, including those who would have been fine even without any treatment at all. This is one of the main reasons that the number of patients with mental disorders is increasing, and that the number of patients who never come back into the labour market also increases. This is largely due to the drugs and not the disease.
Myth 2: It’s no problem to stop treatment with antidepressants
A Danish professor of psychiatry said this at a recent meeting for psychiatrists, just after I had explained that it was difficult for patients to quit. Fortunately, he was contradicted by two foreign professors also at the meeting. One of them had done a trial with patients suffering from panic disorder and agoraphobia and half of them found it difficult to stop even though they were slowly tapering off. It cannot be because the depression came back, as the patients were not depressed to begin with. The withdrawal symptoms are primarily due to the antidepressants and not the disease.
Myth 3: Psychotropic drugs for mental illness are like insulin for diabetes
Most patients with depression or schizophrenia have heard this falsehood over and over again, almost like a mantra, in TV, radio and newspapers. When you give insulin to a patient with diabetes, you give something the patient lacks, namely insulin. Since we’ve never been able to demonstrate that a patient with a mental disorder lacks something that people who are not sick don’t lack, it is wrong to use this analogy.
Patients with depression don’t lack serotonin, and there are actually drugs that work for depression although they lower serotonin. Moreover, in contrast to insulin, which just replaces what the patient is short of, and does nothing else, psychotropic drugs have a very wide range of effects throughout the body, many of which are harmful. So, also for this reason, the insulin analogy is extremely misleading.
Myth 4: Psychotropic drugs reduce the number of chronically ill patients
This is probably the worst myth of them all. US science journalist Robert Whitaker demonstrates convincingly in “Anatomy of an Epidemic” that the increasing use of drugs not only keeps patients stuck in the sick role, but also turns many problems that would have been transient into chronic diseases.
If there had been any truth in the insulin myth, we would have expected to see fewer patients who could not fend for themselves. However, the reverse has happened. The clearest evidence of this is also the most tragic, namely the fate of our children after we started treating them with drugs. In the United States, psychiatrists collect more money from drug makers than doctors in any other specialty and those who take most money tend to prescribe antipsychotics to children most often. This raises a suspicion of corruption of the academic judgement.
The consequences are damning. In 1987, just before the newer antidepressants (SSRIs or happy pills) came on the market, very few children in the United States were mentally disabled. Twenty years later it was over 500,000, which represents a 35-fold increase. The number of disabled mentally ill has exploded in all Western countries. One of the worst consequences is that the treatment with ADHD medications and happy pills has created an entirely new disease in about 10% of those treated – namely bipolar disorder – which we previously called manic depressive illness.
Leading psychiatrist have claimed that it is “very rare” that patients on antidepressants become bipolar. That’s not true. The number of children with bipolar increased 35-fold in the United States, which is a serious development, as we use antipsychotic drugs for this disorder. Antipsychotic drugs are very dangerous and one of the main reasons why patients with schizophrenia live 20 years shorter than others. I have estimated in my book, ‘Deadly Medicine and Organized Crime’, that just one of the many preparations, Zyprexa (olanzapine), has killed 200,000 patients worldwide.
Myth 5: Happy pills* do not cause suicide in children and adolescents
Some professors are willing to admit that happy pills increase the incidence of suicidal behavior while denying that this necessarily leads to more suicides, although it is well documented that the two are closely related. Lundbeck’s CEO, Ulf Wiinberg, went even further in a radio programme in 2011 where he claimed that happy pills reduce the rate of suicide in children and adolescents. When the stunned reporter asked him why there then was a warning against this in the package inserts, he replied that he expected the leaflets would be changed by the authorities!
Suicides in healthy people, triggered by happy pills, have also been reported. The companies and the psychiatrists have consistently blamed the disease when patients commit suicide. It is true that depression increases the risk of suicide, but happy pills increase it even more, at least up to about age 40, according to a meta-analysis of 100,000 patients in randomized trials performed by the US Food and Drug Administration.
Myth 6: Happy pills have no side effects
At an international meeting on psychiatry in 2008, I criticized psychiatrists for wanting to screen many healthy people for depression. The recommended screening tests are so poor that one in three healthy people will be wrongly diagnosed as depressed. A professor replied that it didn’t matter that healthy people were treated as happy pills have no side effects!
Happy pills have many side effects. They remove both the top and the bottom of the emotions, which, according to some patients, feels like living under a cheese-dish cover. Patients care less about the consequences of their actions, lose empathy towards others, and can become very aggressive. In school shootings in the United States and elsewhere a striking number of people have been on antidepressants.
The companies tell us that only 5% get sexual problems with happy pills, but that’s not true. In a study designed to look at this problem, sexual disturbances developed in 59% of 1,022 patients who all had a normal sex life before they started an antidepressant. The symptoms include decreased libido, delayed or no orgasm or ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction, all at a high rate, and with a low tolerance among 40% of the patients. Happy pills should therefore not have been marketed for depression where the effect is rather small, but as pills that destroy your sex life.
Myth 7: Happy pills are not addictive
They surely are and it is no wonder because they are chemically related to and act like amphetamine. Happy pills are a kind of narcotic on prescription. The worst argument I have heard about the pills not causing dependency is that patients do not require higher doses. Shall we then also believe that cigarettes are not addictive? The vast majority of smokers consume the same number of cigarettes for years.
Myth 8: The prevalence of depression has increased a lot
A professor argued in a TV debate that the large consumption of happy pills wasn’t a problem because the incidence of depression had increased greatly in the last 50 years. I replied it was impossible to say much about this because the criteria for making the diagnosis had been lowered markedly during this period. If you wish to count elephants in Africa, you don’t lower the criteria for what constitutes an elephant and count all the wildebeest, too.
Myth 9: The main problem is not overtreatment, but undertreatment
Again, leading psychiatrists are completely out of touch with reality. In a 2007 survey, 51% of the 108 psychiatrists said that they used too much medicine and only 4 % said they used too little. In 2001–2003, 20% of the US population aged 18–54 years received treatment for emotional problems, and sales of happy pills are so high in Denmark that every one of us could be in treatment for 6 years of our lives. That is sick.
Myth 10: Antipsychotics prevent brain damage
Some professors say that schizophrenia causes brain damage and that it is therefore important to use antipsychotics. However, antipsychotics lead to shrinkage of the brain, and this effect is directly related to the dose and duration of the treatment. There is other good evidence to suggest that one should use antipsychotics as little as possible, as the patients then fare better in the long term. Indeed, one may completely avoid using antipsychotics in most patients with schizophrenia, which would significantly increase the chances that they will become healthy, and also increase life expectancy, as antipsychotics kill many patients.
How should we use psychotropic drugs?
I am not against using drugs, provided we know what we are doing and only use them in situations where they do more good than harm. Psychiatric drugs can be useful sometimes for some patients, especially in short-term treatment, in acute situations. But my studies in this area lead me to a very uncomfortable conclusion:
Our citizens would be far better off if we removed all the psychotropic drugs from the market, as doctors are unable to handle them. It is inescapable that their availability creates more harm than good. Psychiatrists should therefore do everything they can to treat as little as possible, in as short time as possible, or not at all, with psychotropic drugs.
At least Wendy Burn and Carmine Pariente admitted the first of Peter Gøtzsche’s myths. I look forward to a time when Myths 2-10 are dispelled by those who are at present prescribing a ridiculously high and ultimately harmful number of antidepressants.
* I am not comfortable with the phrase “happy pills”, but I have left the original text intact. It is possible that, in this context, the phrase emanates from a literal translation from Danish.
Great to see this inspiring group of individuals get together to protest against the utterly corrupted- pharma-controlled– MHRA in the UK. The MHRA is the UK’s medicines regulator, however it seems that in regards to Seroxat, it wasn’t regulated at all. The revolving door between the MHRA and Big Pharma companies like GSK serves to make sure that the interests of Pharma are always first priority over patient health and well being…
Seroxat survivors know that only to well…
For more on this protest see the Facebook link below:
And if you haven’t signed this petition, calling to disband the MHRA, please join the other 12,000 or so people who have signed it already.
Six British multinationals ‘did not pay any UK corporation tax in 2014’The same year, the six companies in the top 10 of the London stock exchange made a combined global profit of 30bn.
Six of Britain’s 10 biggest multinationals, including Shell, British American Tobacco (BAT) and Lloyds Banking Group, paid no UK corporation tax in 2014, an investigation has claimed.
The reports come after Chancellor George Osborne received a backlash over calling a “sweetheart deal” with tech giant Google, which was allowed to pay £130m for back taxes over the last decade, a “success”.
Lloyds, brewer SABMiller and drugs company AstraZeneca were also among the six multinationals not to have paid any coropration tax in 2014, reports the Sunday Times.
The same year, the six British companies made a combined global profit of £30bn.British Petroleum (BP) and drugs company Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) refused to reveal how much UK corporation tax they paid, but GSK declared it had paid some tax in 2014.
The title to more than 40 GlaxoSmithKline trademarks went to a factory in Puerto Rico, including the trademark for the top-selling diabetes drug Avandia.
The trademark for the newly launched breast cancer drug Tykerb was assigned to Ireland, another low-tax regime, in 2005, followed there by the firm’s Sensodyne toothpaste brand in January 2008.
In 2007, the Puerto Rico trademarks, including Avandia, were shifted on to the firm’s Irish operation in Cork. Glaxo’s production was phased out at SB Pharmco Inc in Puerto Rico after quality control problems.
The value of Glaxo’s trademarks, their intellectual property, has been estimated to constitute as much as 5% of the eventual selling price of a drug. The company explains in its most recent annual report: “Profits arising from certain operations in … Puerto Rico and Ireland are accorded special status and are taxed at reduced rates compared with the normal rates of tax in these territories. The effect increased earnings per share by 4.9p in 2007, 7.2p in 2006 and 2.7p in 2005.”
Helen Jones, Glaxo’s head of tax, told us: “It is a widespread and totally accepted practice for global companies to license out intellectual property in return for royalties which reflect the value of work carried out by the holder.”
Glaxo pays on average more than 80% of its tax to overseas countries rather than to Britain. Last year as a result, although the British official tax rate has been 30%, and Glaxo’s worldwide profits were £7.4bn, the company’s actual UK tax bill was only £450m. This is still a hefty sum, and it is to Glaxo’s credit that it declares its UK tax charge (although it still does not disclose how much UK tax is actually paid over in cash each year). But it is only a tiny fraction of the pharmaceutical giant’s profits particularly relevant to the amount of Glaxo’s initial research and development carried out by British scientists in Britain.
Glaxo says it is natural that most of its tax is paid overseas, where it has more than 80% of its 100,000 employees. The company claims more than 90% of its turnover is “not related to the company’s UK subsidiaries”. It is not clear how much more UK tax would be paid if the intellectual property created in the UK had been kept in the UK.
Glaxo has been embroiled in tax rows around the world, not only in the UK, but in Canada, Japan, and most of all the US, where it makes the most lucrative sales. In 2006, it finally agreed to pay the US £1.7bn to settle a huge dispute over sales of the ulcer drug Zantac and others produced in the Puerto Rico factories. The US claimed it was being cheated out of its fair share of global tax.
Transnational companies do sometimes find themselves caught in the middle of arguments between different countries about their respective share of the tax cake.
The US is also currently demanding another $680m, which Glaxo disputes, over attempts to deduct loan interest from Glaxo profits. The company was locked in a lengthy fight with the British tax authorities, described as being over “transfer pricing” and “controlled foreign company” issues, in which Glaxo was accused of piling up too many profits abroad.
Glaxo said last year that there were “wide differences in positions” between the company and HM Revenue & Customs, which might lead to litigation. But in June, the disputes were suddenly resolved “with no material impact on the expected tax rate for the year”.
This followed shortly after meetings between Glaxo executives and Gordon Brown, and public threats that Glaxo might relocate to the Republic of Ireland.
In 2006, Glaxo paid US £1.7bn to settle dispute over sale of drugs produced in Puerto Rico
GSK bills UK government $92 million to compensate victims who were brain-damaged by its own vaccine for swine flu
Reports indicate that dozens of Pandemrix victims from the UK will be awarded about $1.5 million each in British pounds for permanent health damage caused by GSK’s Pandemrix vaccine. One in 16,000 people who took the vaccine, it turns out, are said to have developed narcolepsy and/or cataplexy, two neurological diseases that disrupt normal sleep patterns and muscle function.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describes narcolepsy as “a chronic neurological disorder caused by the brain’s inability to regulate sleep-wake cycles normally.” The agency also admits that Pandemrix, which was widely administered during the manufactured 2009 swine flu “pandemic,” increases one’s risk of developing narcolepsy.
During the 2009/10 swine flu outbreak, some 60 million people received the Pandemrix jab. Based on a risk of one in 16,000, this suggests that nearly 4,000 people have likely developed one of the neurological diseases, with many more cases expected to emerge in the coming months. If each case is paid out at the roughly $1.5 million rate, taxpayers could be forced to shell out upwards of $5.6 billion in damages.
“There has never been a case like this before,” stated Peter Todd, a lawyer representing many of the claimants, to the Sunday Times (as quoted by the International Business Times). “The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”
GSK refused to supply governments with Pandemrix vaccines unless first granted total immunity from liability
Throughout Europe, where Pandemrix was primarily administered — no Pandemrix vaccines were administered in the U.S., as the vaccine was never licensed and approved for use there — there have been about 800 reported cases of injuries from the vaccine in children. Besides inducing sleep randomly, narcolepsy damages mental function and memory, and can lead to hallucinations and mental illness.
Similarly, cataplexy causes sufferers to suddenly lose consciousness during times when they’re experiencing heightened levels of emotion, including when they’re laughing. The condition is said to be incurable, and sufferers are constantly at risk of having “sleep attacks,” including when they’re working, driving, operating heavy machinery or performing other tasks that require one’s full attention.
What many of the people who took the Pandemrix vaccine probably didn’t realize, however, as they lined up like herded sheep to get jabbed is that GSK refused to supply the vaccine to governments without first being indemnified against any damage claims. The $92-or-so million now being shelled out, in other words, isn’t actually coming out of its own profits.
According to the International Business Times, GSK will, in fact, have to pay the bill as required for damages caused by its Pandemrix vaccine. But it will then claim the money back from the government, meaning taxpayers in the various countries where Pandemrix was administered will end up footing the bill for their own injuries.
“There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pandemrix increased the occurrence of narcolepsy onset in children in some countries – and probably in most countries,” stated Emmanuelle Mignot, a specialist in sleep disorders at Stanford University, to Reuters.
Mignot, it turns out, was actually paid by GSK to investigate the effects of Pandemrix, and even he came to the conclusion that the vaccine is dangerous and can cause permanent neurological damage in some people.
Sources for this article include:
If vaccines don’t cause brain damage, why is GlaxoSmithKline paying out $63 million to vaccine victims?
Tuesday, July 21, 2015 by: Jennifer Lilley
(NaturalNews) Since the swine flu panic that was widespread in 2009, prompting more than 60 million people to get vaccinated against it, countless amounts of individuals – predominantly children – have developed a range of health conditions. Mainly, brain damage has been the issue; everything from sleep disturbances and memory impairments to hallucinations and mental illness have been experienced by those who received the swine flu vaccine.
Most medical professionals and Big Pharma folks are quick to defend and recommend such vaccines; of course pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine, Pandemrix, is a key player in this regard. However, they’ve come under fire recently and rather than sit under a protective you-can’t-touch-me cloak, the pharma giant has been ordered to pay about $60 million to the UK government after it was determined that Pandemrix played a role in causing brain damage in a range of cases.
“No doubt” swine flu vaccine linked to brain damage
“There’s no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Pandemrix increased the occurrence of narcolepsy onset in children in some countries – and probably in most countries,” says Emmanuelle Mignot, a specialist in sleep disorder at Stanford University who looked into the effects of the vaccine.
About 80 percent of those affected have been children, but GSK continually turned a blind eye. Even when a study came out showing that vaccinated children where 13 times more likely to develop narcolepsy, the company didn’t admit any link. Even when, in 2011, the European Medicines Agency issued a warning that people under 20 should refrain from getting the vaccine, GSK didn’t pay attention. They maintain that they are professionals dedicated to human health; the GSK website currently says, “At GSK responsible business is how we do business. Our mission is to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better, live longer.”
Sure, tell that to eight-year-old Josh Hadfield, from Somerset, England. He took Pandemrix and guess what? He’s now on anti-narcolepsy drugs to help keep him awake in school, something which costs approximately $15,000 annually.
“If you make him laugh, he collapses. His memory is shot. There is no cure,” his mother says. “He says he wishes he hadn’t been born. I feel incredibly guilty about letting him have the vaccine.”
GSK web site puts emphasis on “delivering financial performance”
Interestingly, the same GSK website that talks about the company’s responsibility to help others feel good and live long lives also touches on a more pressing issue, at least for them – and it’s one that says a mouthful. Just a few sentences below its statement of health dedication, in larger font that stands out from the rest of the copy, it says, “How we operate is just as important to us as delivering financial performance.” The statement is attributed to Sir Andrew Witty, GSK CEO. So there you have it. That, my friends, is it in a nutshell, basically as close as we’ll come to “hearing” straight from the source itself that all Big Pharma truly has in mind is the health of their numbers.
Of course the fact that GSK will be paying the UK government millions of dollars to those who now have brain damage from taking Pandemrix also speaks volumes. It acts as an admission that taking the vaccine is indeed a health problem; otherwise, why would GSK be on board with giving money to those who are now hardly able to function in their daily lives? It they truly felt they were in the right, they’d stand firm and refuse to make any payments, right?
“There has never been a case like this before,” says Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants in the U.K. “The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”
It’s expected that even more people will develop brain injuries associated with taking the swine flu vaccine, especially narcolepsy and cataplexy, which makes a person lose consciousness whenever they experience deep emotions such as the basic act of laughing.
I discovered an interesting new website called “MHRA Corrupt“.
The MHRA are the UK medicines regulator. Their job is supposedly to protect the consumer from defective and dodgy drugs, however those of us with experiences of Seroxat (Paxil) were utterly failed by the MHRA, and unfortunately because of their failure to warn- many of us live with Seroxat drug damage (which in some cases- might never heal).
I have been bringing attention to the revolving door between GSK and the MHRA for alomost a decade on my blog here, so it’s gratifying to see that others are also noticing the inherent conflict of interests, and potential for corruption, which exists between industry and the regulators.
It’s simply scandalous how the MHRA behaves when consumers are damaged by the drugs which they are supposed to regulate, and it’s even more scandalous when you see that many of the top executives once worked for GSK (one of the most corrupt corporations on the planet).
Check out the website, MHRA Corrupt here : http://mhracorrupt.st/
I wish the creators of the website well…
Both from Glaxo Smith Kline, the world’s second largest pharmaceutical company.
To kill without conscience or remorse requires a psychopathic mentality. Which MHRA board directors are psychopaths?
The MHRA, the UK Drug Safety Agency, Falsified Vaccine Safety Data – Millions of Children At Serious Risk
GSK’s Cervarix HPV vaccines for cervical cancer: The MHRA systematically tampered with 6000 reports of adverse reactions to declare the vaccine safe…………The MHRA’s Director Gerald Heddell and CEO Ian Hudson are both ex GSK, Glaxo Smith Kline.
House of Commons Health Select Committee Report of 2005
“In view of the failings of the MHRA, we recommend a fundamental review.”
MHRA: Regulators’ trail of deception has been exposed
Andrew Miller, the chairman of a parliamentary select committee, has said that a “trail of deception” has been exposed in the system.
MHRA under fire amid calls for shake-up of regulatory system:
The scandal of device regulation in the UK
Horton said: “The MHRA’s mission is ‘to enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe’. The MHRA is, by its own admission, unable to fulfil this mission.
MHRA, The Seroxat killer: Parmjit Dhanda, MP, Gloucester
is asking the Government why they allowed Dr Ian Hudson, the MHRA CEO, to take part in the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA)’s review of Seroxat, an antidepressant. As well as working as worldwide safety director for GSK – the manufacturers of Seroxat (Paxil, Paroxetine)– from 1999 until 2001, Dr Hudson acted as witness for the defence in a trial in which Seroxat was accused of triggering a man’s violent and suicidal behaviour.
Paul Flynn MP, Newport: What credibility does the MHRA have?
Recent events have proven that it is not a watchdog; it is a pussycat that purrs in front of the pharmaceutical industry and does what it is told. It has an incestuous relationship with the big pharmas and has a close association with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. It has a disgraceful recent record. We can look with gratitude to the work not of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in protecting the public, but to people such as Sarah Boseley of The Guardian for her exposé of the organisation, to the television programme “Panorama” and to Richard Brook of Mind, who courageously resigned from the MHRA in disgust at its activities.
It is a matter of enormous importance that, in recent history, the regulator is not protecting the 25,000 people who suffered heart attacks and the 7,000 who died from taking a painkilling drug for arthritics that was withdrawn by Merck Sharpe and Dohme in September, after being promoted by the regulator.
MHRA conceals Seroxat causes suicide
“The MHRA had information in its possession for more than a decade that high doses of the anti-depressant Seroxat can lead to aggression and thoughts of suicide. But instead of revealing the truth to the 17,000 people taking high doses and the other half-million Britons on a safer dose, the MHRA sat on its findings. Astonishingly, I was actually threatened with legal action by Professor Kent Woods, chief executive of the MHRA, if I revealed this.”
The MHRA is GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme
A Sunday Express investigation found that nearly a third of the 181 experts who sit on the Medicines Control Agency (MCA, now the MHRA) committees are linked to Glaxo Smith Kline, Aventis Pasteur or Merck, Sharpe and Dohme……The MCA has continued to endorse the triple measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab despite concerns linking it to autism and stomach disorders. But the extent of the MCA members’ financial ties to MMR manufacturers raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
Licensed drugs are the number 4 killer of mankind
The MHRA’s big brother, the USA’s FDA, admits drugs, ie those the FDA and MHRA license, kill scores of thousands. That’s what happens when the regulator is controlled by the drug companies. The MHRA conceal this.
The MHRA is criticised for failing to adequately regulate implants
with grim consequences for some patients. While the board contains retired senior executives from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, it includes no one from a patient group, or any other body representing people whose health could be damaged by its decisions.
The web of unelected bodies functions as a kind of shadow government, drafting and enforcing policies, disbursing money, regulating – or failing to regulate – business, quietly, unobtrusively, without effective public scrutiny or restraint. When it is unbalanced, crawling with conflicts of interest, it makes a nonsense of democracy.
The MHRA protects the monopolies of the billion dollar pharmaceuticals (who charge, eg. £40,000 for a round of chemotherapy), and ruthlessly closes down inexpensive, effective treatments wherever it can.
Even the courts know the MHRA is corrupt
The MHRA has never successfully prosecuted a company since it was established nearly 10 years ago. (It seems judges won’t accept evidence from so corrupt a source.)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/08/pharma-misbehaviour-gsk-fine -see last paragraph.
The BBC’s Panorama programme is equally damning: