Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / May 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

this could be one of the reasons pfizer charges $10 for the blue    pill

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
c palmer - 15 May 2004 08:50 GMT

also read about TAP's big fine for illegally marketed a prostate cancer
drug.

ps. this is just more proof that there is money is the marketing of
goods and services to the cancer patients more than there is in looking
out for their welfare.

~ curtis
------------------------

No. 1 drugmaker pleads guilty for pushing epilepsy drug for other,
unapproved uses.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc. agreed to pay $430 million and plead
guilty to criminal charges for illegally marketing an epilepsy drug for
unapproved uses such as migraines and pain, U.S. prosecutors said
Thursday.

The company's Warner-Lambert division promoted the drug, Neurontin, for
uses it had no scientific evidence to support, and even in cases where
the drug was shown to be ineffective, prosecutors said.
For example, the company promoted Neurontin for treating bipolar
disease, even though a study showed a placebo worked as well or better
than the drug for manic depression.

"Warner-Lambert's promotional efforts were a highly organized and
deliberate attempt to circumvent federal restrictions on marketing,''
Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum told a news conference in
Washington.

The $240 million criminal portion of Pfizer's payment is the second
largest criminal fine for a health-care fraud case, McCallum said.

TAP Pharmaceuticals, a venture of Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Takeda
Chemical Industries Ltd., agreed in 2001 to pay $290 million over
charges it illegally marketed a prostate cancer drug.

The Justice Department and attorneys general of all 50 states agreed to
the Neurontin settlement with Pfizer.
The settlement won't have a big financial impact on Pfizer, the world's
largest drugmaker with more than $45 billion in sales last year. The
company has already set aside funds needed for the settlement.
Still, Pfizer (PFE: down $0.40 to $35.31, Research, Estimates) stock
fell more than 1 percent in late New York Stock Exchange trading.

The case originated from a lawsuit filed in late 1996 by whistle-blower
David Franklin, who had worked for Warner-Lambert before it was acquired
by Pfizer in 2000.

Franklin said the company used a variety of schemes to illegally pump up
sales of Neurontin -- a drug that remains one of Pfizer's biggest
sellers with 2003 sales of $2.7 billion.

According to court documents, a May
1996 voicemail message from a top marketer to "medical liaisons'' in the
Northeast was like a call to arms: "When we get out there, we want to
kick some a.s, we want to sell Neurontin on pain.''
Under federal regulations, companies may market and promote drugs only
for uses approved by the Food and Drug Administration, although doctors
can prescribe drugs to treat other uses. Companies have been
increasingly scrutinized by regulators for "off-label'' marketing.

"This is a big chunk of money, and sends a warning shot to the drug
industry that companies and their sales representatives had better be
careful not to promote unauthorized uses of their medicines to
doctors,'' said David Moskowitz, an analyst for Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co.

Pfizer said in a statement "the allegations and conduct pertain solely
to Warner-Lambert practices'' before it was acquired by Pfizer.

Franklin accused Warner-Lambert of hiring an outside firm to write at
least 20 articles for medical journals that extolled unauthorized uses
of Neurontin and then paid doctors for use of their names as authors of
the reports, according to court documents.

Moreover, Franklin told investigators that Warner-Lambert trained its
sales representatives how to hype unauthorized uses of Neurontin,
including one meeting in which a senior company official suggested what
to tell doctors.

"We need to be holding their hand and whispering in their ear,
'Neurontin for pain, Neurontin for monotherapy, Neurontin for bipolar,
Neurontin for everything'," according to a 2002 New York Times story
detailing Franklin's allegations.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, which spearheaded prosecution of
the case, will receive $240 million of the settlement for criminal
violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.

Franklin will receive about $24.6 million.
Another $152 million will be distributed to the states and federal
government for Medicaid violations. Other sums will be distributed to
state health agencies and departments, while $28 million will be used
for a national advertising campaign and remediation program to be
overseen by state attorneys general

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
Alan Meyer - 15 May 2004 18:43 GMT
> ...
> ps. this is just more proof that there is money is the marketing of
> goods and services to the cancer patients more than there is in looking
> out for their welfare.
> ...

What the pharmaceutical companies are doing to us
is a national disgrace.  And it is also a disgrace that our
politicians, paid off by "campaign contributions" and
fear of contributions to their opponents, won't do anything
about it.

And as you say, all of the money used to buy false
advertising and political influence comes from us.

   Alan
Danny McCarty - 16 May 2004 00:15 GMT
>Subject: Re: this could be one of the reasons pfizer charges $10 for the
>bluepill
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
>    Alan

The problem could easily be solved- Just require that no medicine could be sold
unless its contents and method of production was published, then any
manufacturer be allowed to produce and sell it, subject only to the requirement
that the manufacturer pay the patient holder 10% of the sale price during the
term of the patient.  If the medicine is useful, everyone will manufacture it
and sell it in a competitive market, and therefore as cheaply as they can make
it. The patient holder does not set the selling price.
Alan Meyer - 16 May 2004 19:00 GMT
> The problem could easily be solved- Just require that no medicine could be sold
> unless its contents and method of production was published, then any
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> and sell it in a competitive market, and therefore as cheaply as they can make
> it. The patient holder does not set the selling price.

That's a marvellous idea Danny.  It retains a financial incentive
for the patent holder to keep doing research and invent new
drugs, but it prevents monopoly pricing.  Potentially, it might be
a great incentive for small startup companies that don't have any
marketing capability but do have good research brains.  They
don't have to worry about ability to market anything.

It's a purely capitalist approach, but an anti-monopoly
approach.

Are any politicians pushing this, or is it something you thought
of by yourself?  If so - peddle it around to the politicians.  It's
a neat idea (but change the spelling of "patient" to patent").

   Alan
Danny McCarty - 17 May 2004 04:36 GMT
>Subject: Re: this could be one of the reasons pfizer charges $10 for the
>bluepill
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
>    Alan

Thanks for the compliment.  No, I've never heard anyone else describe anything
like it.  I like free enterprise, small business, non-monopolistic capitalism.
Capitalism is not capitalism without the adjectives.  Oh, I am so patient I
thought they might pay the royalties to me...
Heather - 16 May 2004 03:21 GMT
And I would like to add my 2 Canadian cents' worth.......it is Pfizer who is
*blackmailing* Canada by threatening to cut down on shipments of necessary
meds.....Lipitor being one I take......unless our Gov't. cracks down on the
cross-border pharmacies!!!!!!!!

So....in a nutshell......

1.  We have Canadian. pharmacies selling Pfizer (and Big Pharma) drugs back
to Americans at a much lower price than you pay for them in the US allegedly
by these cross-border companies.

2.  We pay far less for the same drugs up here because the rates are capped
and we have a *national*......not *socialist*.....health care program.
(that is for Steve.....grin)

3.  Because we allow these pharmacies to operate to help out low income
people (and entire US States lately), Big Pharma, (but Pfizer is the worst
offender).....threatens to cut off supplies of all sorts of needed drugs to
Canadians.....who do not own these cross-border pharmacies.

4.  FWIW.....I pay $6/prescription regardless of the real cost (a benefit
for being over 65)....compare that to what you pay.  And I compared prices
last year with Dave S, I believe, on what I pay for the same drugs you take.
We pay far less even at our full cost.

Do you think this threat is fair?  NO!!!!!!  There is no goddam way we will
be threatened by the major US companies, and this is going to blow up in
their faces.  I also learned that our Lipitor is made in Puerto
Rico.....yours is made in France.  Does that make sense to you....as
Americans??

OK....rant over, but just for now, grin.  I hate to see how you all are
getting ripped off......and I hate being threatened by money-hungry American
pharmaceutical companies.  They have entirely too much power and I think you
guys had better start yelling at your Gov't. to whip them back into shape.
For your sake and mine.

Case in point:  I just started taking Lipitor 2 months ago.  I renewed it
today and I paid $6.11.  The retail price for non-seniors is $72.54 for 30
pills.  Taking the exchange rate into consideration, what do you pay??  This
is the 20 mg. strength, btw.

Just got a spam in for drugs from a cross-border company (why they send it
to Canada, I don't know...)  But here is another example of how you are
being ripped off.  They charge you way more than I pay.

100 Diazepan (Valium), made by Apotex, 10 mg.  $269.00 US.
I have a prescription in front of me for 100 Diazepam 5 mg, same
manufacturer......full price is  $14.00.

Also....100 Pantoloc for Ron....40 mg......$215.54 retail here......paid $6.
Can't remember if that is for blood pressure or GERD.

Now you tell me you are NOT getting ripped off.   Pardon my being blunt, but
I could not AFFORD to get sick in your country!!  Maybe our taxes are a bit
higher.....maybe we wait a tad longer for an elective surgery.....but I will
take that any day!!

Heather (Feisty, grin)

> > ...
> > ps. this is just more proof that there is money is the marketing
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>     Alan
Steve Kramer - 16 May 2004 18:12 GMT
> 2.  We pay far less for the same drugs up here because the rates are capped
> and we have a *national*......not *socialist*.....health care program.
> (that is for Steve.....grin)

I agree wholeheartedly with you Heather.  It is national, "national" being
an adjective meaning "of or relating to a nation."

However, I'm sure you agree with me that it is pure socialism, "socialism"
being a noun meaning "any of varioius social systems based on shared or
government ownership and administration of the means of production and
distribution of goods."

And who knows, the Canadian health care system just might be the very first
socialistic program ever in the world to work.  It might happen.  You just
never know.  :-)
Alan Meyer - 16 May 2004 19:01 GMT
> > 2.  We pay far less for the same drugs up here because the rates are
> capped
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> socialistic program ever in the world to work.  It might happen.  You just
> never know.  :-)

For all you folks concerned about socialism - have a look
at Danny's post above.  A purely capitalist way to take the
monopoly pricing out of drug marketing.
Heather - 16 May 2004 19:40 GMT
> > > 2.  We pay far less for the same drugs up here because the rates
> are capped and we have a *national*......not *socialist*.....health care
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> > However, I'm sure you agree with me that it is pure socialism,
> "socialism" being a noun meaning "any of varioius social systems based on
shared or government ownership and administration of the means of production
and distribution of goods."

> > And who knows, the Canadian health care system just might be the
> very first socialistic program ever in the world to work.  It might
happen. You just never know.  :-)

> For all you folks concerned about socialism - have a look
> at Danny's post above.  A purely capitalist way to take the
> monopoly pricing out of drug marketing.

And has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.  These big companies are
now trying to circumvent the patents on statin drugs for instance, by
finding new (and questionable) uses for the same drug on a different part of
the body.

I use generic drugs where feasible......but the wait for them is 5-10 years,
depending on whether or not the manufacturer has *weaseled* his way around
the patent restrictions.

Big Pharma has a stranglehold on the US and to some extent, Canada.  But
there are other companies in the world that we can buy from.  Not up on all
of that tho.

Cheers.....Heather
Alan Meyer - 16 May 2004 22:58 GMT
> > ...
> > For all you folks concerned about socialism - have a look
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> finding new (and questionable) uses for the same drug on a different part of
> the body.
...

You're right of course.  It's probably wishful thinking to
imagine we can beat the pharmaceutical companies in
this, or any other way.

But you never know.  If we talk about it enough maybe
a lot of people will get riled up and rebel.  If enough of
them do, maybe some politicians will take notice.

In general, U.S. politicians are for sale to the highest
bidder, but there have been times in American history
when popular imagination combines with reform politics
to make significant change.  It happened with Andrew
Jackson and the extension of the vote, with Teddy
Roosevelt and trust busting, with Franklin Roosevelt
and Social Security, and with a host of both Democratic
and Republican politicians in the battle against racial
discrimination.

I'll keep arguing for ideas like Danny's.

Heather, I think you've been known to tilt at a few windmills
yourself.

  Alan
Heather - 17 May 2004 03:00 GMT
> > > ...
> > > For all you folks concerned about socialism - have a look
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> a lot of people will get riled up and rebel.  If enough of
> them do, maybe some politicians will take notice.

And THAT.....my dear, is what I want you to do.

> I'll keep arguing for ideas like Danny's.

Good......go for it!!

> Heather, I think you've been known to tilt at a few windmills
> yourself.

Big grin here......which *windmill* are you referring to??  Got the Federal
passport problem changed and they are now opening a lot more offices.

Or was it the couple of times I ranted at CNN via email and got some minor
changes....not that I really think they listen to me, to be honest.

One big advantage of retirement age??  Being able to say what I think and if
people don't like it, they figure I am getting senile....LOL.  I remember my
Dad saying that in his early 80's.  However, I have always been
outspoken......not about to change now.

"Feisty"
Alan Meyer - 17 May 2004 03:05 GMT
> ...  However, I have always been
> outspoken......not about to change now.
>
> "Feisty"

Good for you!  May you inspire many others.

   Alan
 
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.