 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2004More Glaxco crimes - Torture of children AND animals
Animal Welfare GlaxoSmithKline uses animal testing and vivisection in its drug research. In it’s company policy on animal testing GSK “…acknowledges that it has a moral responsibility to ensure best practice in the humane treatment of laboratory animals.”[28] In spite of this, GSK’s testing practices are often cruel, and the tests themselves completely unnecessary. GSK’s animal testing policy claims “Non-medical Consumer Healthcare products…are never tested on animals unless there is a specific demand for this from national governments.”[29] Yet, the Animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in August 2000 listed SmithKline Beecham as a company that manufactured animal tested products. These were personal health care and household products that were not required by US law to be tested on animals. SmithKline Beeecham’s animal testing policy at the time also stated that testing would only be carried out if required by law.[30] ___________ Story Acquired From the Anti Ignorance Web Site Every year, nearly 100 million animals die in research laboratories at the hands of curious scientists who perform outdated and inaccurate tests that prove no benefit to humans or animals. Before these animals die, they are routinely burned, scalded, poisoned, starved, given electric shocks, addicted to drugs, subjected to near freezing temperatures, dosed with radioactive elements, driven insane, deliberately inflicted with diseases such as cancer, diabetes, oral infections, stomach ulcers, syphilis, herpes, and 'AIDS'. Their eyes are surgically removed; their brains and spinal cords damaged, and their bones broken... The usage of anesthesia is not mandated by law, and consequently, thus is rarely administered. Despite all of this cruelty, not a single disease has been cured through vivisection in this century. The overall adult cancer rate has risen in the past 40 years and a fatal heart attack strikes a person every 45 seconds. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 70-80% of the common diseases killing Americans are preventable given a responsible diet and lifestyle. Drug testing on animals is inaccurate and does not benefit humans or animals at all. Animals including, but not limited to, dogs, cats, mice, rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rhesus monkeys, imported primates, owls, deer, sheep, llama, and cattle are commonly used for vivisection. Vivisection id the medical term for the practice of experimenting on animals. Charles River Breeding Laboratories, a company owned by Bausch and Lomb, provides 40-50% of the animals used in the experiments of laboratories. The other remaining mis-fortunate animals come from places a little closer to you and me. Some of them come from animal shelters, some come from the 'Free to a good home' ads in the classified section of the newspaper, some from unsuspecting people who allow their companion animals to become pregnant, or even worse, some have been stolen directly from their own front yard. Imagine your pet one day being crammed into a cage with ten other animals waiting to die like approximately 20-100 million other animals do each year in numerous unreliable tests. More than 205,000 new drugs are marketed worldwide every year, most after undergoing the most common unreliable test method still in use: animal vivisection. The current system of drug testing places consumer in a dangerous predicament. According to the General Accounting Office, more than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 caused serious side effects that later caused the drugs to be either re-labeled or removed from the market. The following drugs passed safe in animal experiments but proved tragic consequences in humans: Opren: kidneys. Thalidomide: Caused about 10,000 birth defects worldwide. Clioquinol: Caused 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths. Conversely, many drugs that are beneficial to humans are dangerous or even fatal to animals: Penicillin: An antibiotic to humans, but kills guinea pigs. Aspirin: Caused birth defects in rats, mice, monkeys, guinea pigs, cats and dogs, but not humans. This is obvious proof that testing on animals is unreliable, but sadistic tests still go on every day. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine reports that sophisticated non-animal research methods are more accurate, less expensive, and less-time consuming than traditional animal based research methods. Fewer accidental deaths caused by drugs and treatments would occur if stubborn bureaucrats and wealthy vivisectors would use more accurate alternatives such as: Cell and tissue culture in vitro Microorganisms and other species of little or no capacity for pain or suffering Computer models to answer questions and guide animal research Fewer animals used per study Less poorly planned work If animal experimentation was eliminated, it would free up 6.8 billion dollars that could be used for education programs and medical assistance programs for low-income individuals; helping more than 30 million U.S. Citizens who cannot afford health insurance, rather than making animals sick. There will be nearly 275,000 animals dead this time tomorrow that were not dead right now. The numbers are real and this is happening in out world every day only because it is a multi billion dollar income for some people and is legal in the U.S. The National Institutes of Health, the world's largest recipient of funds used for research, must be pushed to fund more preventive programs and human based research. The problem that we are faced with today is not a difficult one to fix. The technology is available for us to use and we should take advantage of our advanced alternate methods. K Observer July 8, 2001 Drug Company Admits Unsafe Vaccines Were Used The former UK company Wellcome allowed thousands of babies to be inoculated in the 1960s and 1970s with toxic whooping cough vaccines it knew had not passed crucial safety tests, the Observer, a UK newspaper, claimed on July 8. It said its investigations showed that two batches of the firm's vaccine were more than 14 times more potent than the standard dose and 14 other batches containing thousands of vaccine doses were not put through a crucial toxicity test. One of the toxic batches was the same batch that led the Irish Supreme Court in 1992 to award £2.7 million (US$3.8 million) in compensation to Kenneth Best, a Cork boy who suffered permanent brain damage. At the time the Irish judge accused Wellcome of negligence and attacked the company's poor quality control at its Kent laboratory. Now, 9 years after the award, the newspaper said the Irish Department of Health had received details from GlaxoSmithKline about the batch--numbered 3741--and was tracing 296 Irish children who were inoculated with it. Glaxo Wellcome merged with SmithKline Beecham to form GlaxoSmithKline in late 2000. The newspaper added that pressure from Denis Naughten, a senior Irish Member of Parliament (MP), has forced other disclosures from the company, including the fact that a second batch of vaccine, numbered 3732, produced by Wellcome around the same time, was even more potent than that used on Best in 1968. In the 3 years after Wellcome produced the toxic batches, dozens of British parents believed their children suffered brain damage or even died as a result of the whooping cough vaccine. But their views were dismissed by drug companies and health officials. The report quotes Gordon Stewart, emeritus professor of public health at Glasgow University, as saying the revelations are "scandalous." Stewart, who in 1984 was asked by the government's Chief Scientific Officer to investigate a link between brain damage and the vaccine, said he advised the Department of Health about these potential toxic batches in 1989 but they did not act. His report, which was never published by the government but has been seen by The Observer, is highly critical of the whooping cough vaccine used at this time, which he believes was toxic. Ian Stewart, Labor MP and chair of the all-party Commons committee on the vaccine issue, said he would be holding an emergency meeting of the committee this week and tabling a series of parliamentary questions. He said, "The families need to know the truth." "If it can be shown that Glaxo Wellcome were negligent in allowing toxic vaccines to be used, then the company must face up to its responsibilities." The families of vaccine-injured children receive £100,000 compensation from a government fund financed by the taxpayer. Stewart believes if the firm is at fault, then they should pay compensation, which would be significantly more. ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. Drug company linked to allegations 'will cooperate' with public inquiry THE pharmaceutical company being linked to alleged vaccinations of babies with an animal vaccine by mistake in the 1970s has indicated it will cooperate fully with any inquiry. Glaxo Smith Kline, successor to the multinational company Wellcome, said it launched an immediate investigation as a result of yesterday's Irish Independent story. Some of the children who reportedly received the cattle and sheep vaccine were taking part in a drugs trial on behalf of the Wellcome drug company in 1973. Instead of getting the three-in-one childhood vaccine Trivax, some of the children were inadvertently given a veterinary vaccine, Tribovax T. Martina Dempsey, director of the medical and regulatory affairs at Glaxo Smith Kline, said: "We are very concerned about this report and we have launched an immediate investigation." All documents would be handed over to a public inquiry. She added: "We have fully cooperated with the Department of Health on any similar investigations in the past and we would be fully committed to giving every assistance we can to get to the bottom of this." ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. Glaxo mothballs chief's £20m pay deal Jill Treanor Wednesday November 27, 2002 The Guardian GlaxoSmithKline yesterday shelved a potential £20m pay deal for its chief executive Jean-Pierre Garnier after a furious backlash from City investors. Britain's biggest pharmaceutical company was forced to put the controversial plan on hold to avoid a full-scale battle with its shareholders, who do not believe the French-born executive deserves such a large pay rise. GSK's retreat was heralded as one of the most significant victories by City investors. Two years ago shareholders exerted pressure on the telecoms group Vodafone to reduce a £10m bonus for its chief exec utive Sir Christopher Gent, while earlier this year the insurance company Prudential dropped a proposed pay deal for its top executives. Mr Garnier, who took home £7m last year, demanded the increase to put his earnings in line with rivals in the United States, where he is based and where pay packets are more generous than those given to UK executives. Shareholders in GSK, who had made their opposition clear in a series of secret meetings with the company chairman, Sir Christopher Hogg, last week, were elated. However, some urged a note of caution amid fears that the company will try to secretly reintroduce the package in the coming months once the furore has died down. This is because GSK said that while it was postponing a decision on the deal, it remained "committed to aligning its incentive plans with those of its pharmaceutical peer group". A spokesman for the National Association of Pension Funds, whose members control around £650bn of pension fund assets, said: "Two cheers for Glaxo, one because they bothered to consult and the second because they listened to shareholders. But, we will be keeping a very close eye on them in the future." At the Association of British Insurers, whose members control a third of the stock market, Peter Montagnon, head of investments, made it clear that any attempt to reintroduce the scheme would meet with further scrutiny from shareholder bodies. "It remains very important that there must be a link between the remuneration and value generation for shareholders," Mr Montagnon said. The proposed pay deal for Mr Garnier was intricately structured, involv ing awards of US-listed shares known as American depository receipts, options over shares and "career performance shares". This pushed the value of the deal to around £20m, according to the Guardian's calculations, after his base salary of £935,000 and other bonuses are added. The timing of the announcement, following a series of top-level crisis meetings at GSK, surprised the City as it appeared to contradict com ments made only yesterday by Sir Christopher Hogg in an interview with the Financial Times. The planned rise for Mr Garnier was regarded as ill-judged by the City as it came after a 30% fall in the company's share price, a 25% slump in profits and a failure by the company's scientists to develop any blockbuster drugs. It also came at a time when US-style pay deals are being discredited after a wave of corporate collapses across the Atlantic such as the oil company Enron. One major shareholder, who asked not to be identified, said: "This is a tactical withdrawal, but in our view JP [Jean-Pierre] is unrepentant and undaunted and they remain committed to the US pay model." The City now believes that Mr Garnier's own job is on the line unless the company, formed through the merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham two years ago, starts to improve dramatically. Bayer, Glaxo Settle Medicaid Fraud Cases Drugmakers Agree to Pay for Withholding Discounts from Insurance Program By Denise Lavoie Associated Press Thursday, April 17, 2003; Page A07 BOSTON, April 15 -- Drugmakers Bayer AG and GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay the largest Medicaid fraud settlements ever negotiated to resolve allegations that they overcharged the government health insurance program for poor people, a federal prosecutor said. Bayer will pay the government more than $250 million, and Glaxo will pay almost $88 million for failing to give the Medicaid program the lowest price charged to any customer, said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan, whose office in Boston helped negotiate the agreement. Bayer said it set aside $257 million last year to cover the cost. The settlements will be shared by the federal government, the District of Columbia and all the states except Arizona. Under the agreement, Bayer will plead guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Sullivan's office said. It will pay a criminal fine of about $5.6 million for alleged overcharges involving Cipro, an antibiotic, and Adalat, a drug to control blood pressure. Bayer will pay about $251.6 million in civil penalties. Glaxo agreed to pay a civil fine for overcharging Medicaid for the antidepressant Paxil and the nasal allergy spray Flonase. Glaxo was not accused of a crime. Sullivan said both companies offered discounts to Kaiser Permanente -- the nation's largest health maintenance organization -- for their drugs. The drugs were then relabeled, which allowed the companies to avoid reporting the low prices given to Kaiser and to avoid paying millions of dollars in rebates to Medicaid. Under the law, drug companies are required to report all their prices and to pay Medicaid a rebate if they charge anyone less than they do the government. Sullivan would not elaborate on why Bayer was charged with a crime while Glaxo was not, but he said the conduct engaged in by the two companies was not identical. Sullivan said that at a time of state budget deficits and skyrocketing prices for prescription drugs, withholding funding from Medicaid can have a devastating impact on efforts to provide drug coverage for the poor. Glaxo said in a prepared statement that the sole issue in the case was how it interpreted an "ambiguous aspect" of the law. The company said it agreed to the civil settlement to avoid the delay and expense of trial. Peter Lurie, deputy director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group in Washington, said such settlements could help control drug costs. "In other countries -- through a variety of different mechanisms -- they negotiate prices, they establish profit margins, and there's a transparency to the process that tends to mitigate the possibility of this kind of fraud," Lurie said. "But in this kind of non-transparent program, there's an invitation to fraud." State and federal prosecutors are in the midst of several investigations into drug manufacturers. TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc., Pfizer Corp. and Bristol-Myers Squibb reached separate agreements to settle multimillion-dollar complaints. Attorneys general from 47 states are investigating whether Pfizer illegally marketed the epilepsy drug Neurontin. The Bayer investigation was prompted by George Couto, a Bayer marketing executive who became a whistle-blower. In 1999, Couto reported his concerns to his boss, according to his New York lawyer, Neil V. Getnick. When the company did nothing about his complaint, Couto, who has since died, took his claims to the Justice Department, Getnick said. Glaxo faces storm over Seroxat Alex Brummer, City Editor, Daily Mail 9 June 2003 CLINICAL auditors from Britain's medicines control agency are expected to descend on Glaxo-SmithKline this week amid concerns that the pharmaceuticals group may have suppressed a series of negative studies on its key antidepressant drug Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US. In a highly unusual move, a team from the Good Clinical Practice unit of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will demand access to all of GSK's files and studies on Seroxat. The decision to take this dramatic step was taken following the delivery to the MHRA of nine studies of Seroxat that confirm the antidepressant can lead to suicidal tendencies and other medical damage when administered to people under the age of 18. There has been extensive media coverage of the potential harmful effects on young people of Seroxat, one of GSK's leading compounds. But until now the company has declined to acknowledge any serious problems. This week, however, it will be asked by the MHRA to contact general practitioners, letting them know of the potential dangers to people under 18. Sources at GSK confirmed that an amendment to the instructions carried with Seroxat was under discussion with the authorities and an announcement would be made shortly. There was no knowledge of the impending clinical audit. Disclosure of the regulatory concerns about Seroxat, which contributes £1.5bn-£2bn of annual turnover to GSK, is likely to lead to nervous selling on the stock market when it opens for business today. Glaxo shares have recovered to 1258p this year after falling below £10 in 2002. Concerns that clinical practices may have slipped at Britain's flagship pharmaceuticals group will put additional pressure on the company's chief executive Jean-Pierre Garnier, who is already under fire over his possible £22m severance package. A senior source at the MHRA told the Daily Mail that the decision to conduct an audit at GSK was 'very, very unusual'. 'Normally we have a good relationship with these guys and work closely together,' the source said. If it were found that critical studies had not been available to regulators then GSK could eventually face criminal charges under the Medicines Act. Previous Good Clinical Practice audits have been carried out at second-line pharmaceutical groups where research practices are sometimes less rigorous. Members of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, the licensing arm of the MHRA, were disturbed when they saw the parallel Seroxat and placebo studies recently submitted by GSK. They revealed a predilection to suicide, aggressive behaviour and other psychosis in Seroxat users under 18, which were not present in the placebo studies. The belief is that a deep volume of research work showing 'contraindications in children' could not have been carried out overnight and the appropriate regulatory authorities should have been alerted much earlier - so appropriate amendments could be made. The big worry for GSK now is that the disclosure of the disquiet at the MHRA and its offshoots could attract the attention of the Food & Drugs Administration in the US, which works closely with the British regulators. That could seriously damage GSK's reputation in the US, where it does much of its business and where Garnier has his headquarters. A spokesman for GSK said: 'We can confirm we are in discussion with the MHRA regarding proposed updates of the product characteristics of Seroxat. However, it is not appropriate to discuss this dialogue further until the outcome of this review. 'Seroxat is an important medication for treatment of anxiety and depression, and has been for more than 10 years. It has benefited the lives of millions of people suffering with these serious conditions.' A decision on the safety of Seroxat/Paxil, and other widely prescribed anti-depressants like Eli Lilly & Co's Prozac, will be announced tomorrow, according to the UK Medicines Control Agency. 'We will be making an announcement about Seroxat tomorrow but we're not saying anything in advance,' spokeswoman Alison Langley said. Glaxo refused to comment on whether a clinical audit was being carried out, but confirmed it is in talks with the MHRA. 'We can confirm we are in discussion with the MHRA regarding proposed updates of the product characteristics of Seroxat,' Glaxo's Martin Sutton said. • SEROXAT is one of the biggest selling antidepressants in the world. It treats depression, panic, obsessive compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety disorder and general anxiety disorder. Last year 400,000 people were prescribed the treatment, also known as the 'anti-shyness pill', in Britain alone. SmithKline hit by inquiry into bribes Simon Bowers Tuesday March 12, 2002 The Guardian SmithKline Beecham, which merged with Glaxo to become Glaxo SmithKline, has become embroiled in a criminal investigation into the alleged bribing of more than 1,000 German doctors in order to secure orders for the drugs it manufactured in the late 1990s. The company is suspected of having paid bribes of up to DM60,000 (£20,000) to individual doctors in almost every city across Germany in return for them taking SmithKline Beecham products. The public prosecutor's office in Munich has started an investigation following raids on a string of businesses two years ago, according to reports in the German press. Yesterday, a spokesman for GSK said they had not known the investigation was under way until the reports appeared. Most of the doctors under suspicion are believed to have received between DM1,000 and DM3,000 between 1997 and 1999, but some individuals may have received DM60,000. Investigators are thought to have heard varying explanations for the payments from those interviewed. Raids on SmithKline Beecham offices in Munich took place in May 2000, months before the completion of the merger with Glaxo Wellcome. The combined business today has an annual turnover in Germany of about £500m. Details of the investigation overshadowed the departure of chairman Sir Richard Sykes, who yesterday announced his retirement. During the past seven years, Sir Richard drove through two huge mergers - with Wellcome in 1995, and SmithKline Beecham in 2000 - transforming the business into Europe's largest pharmaceuticals firm. He stepped back from the role of chief executive in 1997 to become non-executive chairman, but remained the leading figure behind GSK's acquisitive zeal. But yesterday several City analysts insisted there were no signs that GSK had overstretched itself under Sir Richard's stewardship. The GSK chairman, who plans to concentrate on his work as rector of Imperial College, will retire in May taking with him an annual pension expected to be worth more than the £657,000, secured two years ago. The exact figure will be released in the company's annual report, published next month. Sir Richard said: "Having overseen the successful merger of GSK and as I approach my 60th birthday in August, I feel now is the right time to depart." His successor is to be Sir Christopher Hogg, who is already a non-executive director at GSK, and holds a similar post at Reuters. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.