GlaxoSmithKline Pleads Guilty To Illegal Drug Marketing; Fined $3 Billion

[The Brain]

The thread title is quite misleading, considering it was the marketing that was illegal, not the drugs.

[Martinus]

The thread title is quite misleading, considering it was the marketing that was illegal, not the drugs.

What?

[jimmy olsen]

More prosecution, less Mickey Mouse fines with waivers from civil and criminal liability. 

Since when is $3,000,000,000 a Mickey Mouse fine!? 

[Martinus]

More prosecution, less Mickey Mouse fines with waivers from civil and criminal liability. 

Since when is $3,000,000,000 a Mickey Mouse fine!? 

Well, it's less than 10% of their 2011 revenues (which is the kind of fines you pay in normal antitrust investigations which do not carry a civil or criminal immunity with them) so it's not exorbitant. And obviously it will be felt mainly by the shareholders since it's going to eat up almost the entire distributable dividend for 2011, the employees and executives having already received their pay and bonuses.

[Ideologue]

Pharmaceutical companies are like fucking angels sent from heaven to help you benighted souls, and ease your suffering.

This has nothing to do with the fact that my livelihood comes indirectly from a pharmaceutical company, and frankly I'm shocked that you'd make such an ad hominem attack.  For shame.

[CountDeMoney]

Since when is $3,000,000,000 a Mickey Mouse fine!? 

When it buys civil and criminal liability.

[garbon]

At least the FDA is a government agency, answerable to elected officials, who also happen to be answerable to us.

Yes and we seem to love electing and re-electing corrupt ones. (see: Rangel, Charles)

That's the only way the private sector, from Wellbutrin to Wall Street, will ever learn to Do The Right Thing.  The private sector will never willingly do it, institutional morality forever cockblocked by greed, so the only credible alternative is government regulation combined with the very real threat of going to Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison.

I've more faith in getting the goods and services I need from private enterprise than Capitol Hill. 

Also I wonder at a multinational like GSK if the CEO personally approves all marketing/sales efforts for every brand.

[garbon]

The thread title is quite misleading, considering it was the marketing that was illegal, not the drugs.

What?

Stop parsing the sentence the way that you are reading it.

You see: Illegal Drug Marketing
We see: Illegal Drug Marketing

[Martinus]

The thread title is quite misleading, considering it was the marketing that was illegal, not the drugs.

What?

Stop parsing the sentence the way that you are reading it.

You see: Illegal Drug Marketing
We see: Illegal Drug Marketing

I think it can be legitimately read both ways, especially if you consider that several people made jokes/comments implying they read it (whether in jest or seriously) my way. The way I see it, news headlines should avoid ambiguity.

[garbon]

The way I see it, news headlines should avoid ambiguity.

Good thing no one cares how you see it.

[Syt]

Stop parsing the sentence the way that you are reading it.

You see: Illegal Drug Marketing

I like to think the newspaper would have phrased that "Marketing of Illegal Drugs"

[CountDeMoney]

At least the FDA is a government agency, answerable to elected officials, who also happen to be answerable to us.

Yes and we seem to love electing and re-electing corrupt ones. (see: Rangel, Charles)

Representative democracy, Susie.  It's what's for dinner.

I've more faith in getting the goods and services I need from private enterprise than Capitol Hill.

Yeah, because private enterprise always has your best interests in mind.  Sucker.

Also I wonder at a multinational like GSK if the CEO personally approves all marketing/sales efforts for every brand.

Who gives a fuck.  Somebody needs to be held accountable. and sometimes they need to be prosecuted.

[garbon]

Stop parsing the sentence the way that you are reading it.

You see: Illegal Drug Marketing

I like to think the newspaper would have phrased that "Marketing of Illegal Drugs"

I guess I don't hold ValueWalk to the same standards as you. Looks like essentially an internet blog with articles by many non-native speakers.

[garbon]

Representative democracy, Susie.  It's what's for dinner.

So then you can see why I've little faith in the gov't or the FDA in these matters...and the thought that we have little control over them.

Yeah, because private enterprise always has your best interests in mind.  Sucker.

Thankfully my physician does the prescribing, not the pharma company. Not so bad if my doc has more information than less.

Who gives a fuck.  Somebody needs to be held accountable. and sometimes they need to be prosecuted.

It is very relevant. Doesn't seem fair to convict someone of a crime they didn't commit.

[DontSayBanana]

Thankfully my physician does the prescribing, not the pharma company. Not so bad if my doc has more information than less.

Corporations are teh evol, docs are teh wholesome and altruistic.  Sure.

Remember Pfizer getting busted for this?  Remember how much fallout there was from doctors that lost their medical licenses over improperly prescribing based on the perks they were getting from their drug reps?

You go to the doctor.  He submits claims to your insurer, who are going to find any and every reason they can not to pay and stick the doctor with a tab on you that may or may not get settled when it goes to collections.  The same doctor gets all kinds of comps from his drug reps; whose interests do you think the doc is going to favor?