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

[garbon]

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.

Well, now that they paid their speeding ticket, we don't have to worry about anybody going to jail now for anything, now do we?

Your comments in this thread didn't seem to be about just this case.

[garbon]

Trusting? This isn't a trust issue here but more of a - really do I actually think that most doctors out there want to harm their patients? (Even if that harm just comes in the form of benign neglect and poor treatment plans.)  Of course the news is replete with stories of doctors that got kickbacks and prescribed things they shouldn't have - that's what is exciting and "newsworthy".  That says next to nothing about the actual incidence of "evil" docs.

Besides, I'm not saying that one than slavish follows the orders of one's doctor. Hell, shopping around is an important part of the process.

I'm not suggesting doctors are out to deliberately harm their patients- what I'm saying is that in a perfect world, a doctor's primary focus would be the patient's best interest, and they would defer judgment on prescribing for other than the approved use.  In practice, at least a small amount of doctors have shown an "it couldn't hurt" attitude reinforced by drug reps egging them on and offering perks.

Not sure why this is particularly relevant then if there are a small amount of doctors who are unethical.  Nothing is ever ideal, so I'm not sure why that means we should treat healthcare providers as evil.

[garbon]

Yes, actually.  When we're talking ultra-massive distribution of international household names like Wellbutrin or Avandia, so much of the company's going to be tied up in marketing that specific product that to believe the CEO isn't going to be looking over marketing's shoulder is, at best, naive.

We're not talking about a niche vaccine that's only being distributed to one affected area in isolation, where the team's just going to get a marketing plan rubber-stamped by the marketing department.

I think it is a bit unfair to assume that the CEO is going to oversee all marketing/sales efforts. And especially given the no-no that is promoting off label usage, it seems a bit of a stretch to think that a CEO would approve such a plan.

[Grey Fox]

But he's the CEO, if he's not responsible for that, what is he there for? Delegation doesn't free you of responsability.

[The Brain]

But he's the CEO, if he's not responsible for that, what is he there for? Delegation doesn't free you of responsability.

The president doesn't go to jail every time the government is caught doing criminal shit. He has to get blowjobs for that.

[Grey Fox]

But he's the CEO, if he's not responsible for that, what is he there for? Delegation doesn't free you of responsability.

The president doesn't go to jail every time the government is caught doing criminal shit. He has to get blowjobs for that.

Maybe he should  However criminal & civil laws aren't the same thing.

[DGuller]

*shrugs* I'm a little paranoid;

There are pills for that.  Well, they're for something else, but insurance will cover it anyway.

[garbon]

*shrugs* I'm a little paranoid;

There are pills for that.  Well, they're for something else, but insurance will cover it anyway.

He can't afford a doctor.

[Eddie Teach]

The president doesn't go to jail every time the government is caught doing criminal shit. He has to get blowjobs for that.

[Capetan Mihali]

What's wrong with Wellbutrin?

While it's a common intro drug - it can also have some jarring side effects...especially the withdrawal!

Wellbutrin picked my ass up off the ground.  I'm maxed out on it, and the only side effect for me was dry mouth in the beginning.

Withdrawing from Celexa, however, was miserable.

[garbon]

Wellbutrin picked my ass up off the ground.  I'm maxed out on it, and the only side effect for me was dry mouth in the beginning.

Withdrawing from Celexa, however, was miserable.

I tapped in real quick to Wellbutrin's side effect of increased agitation. The littlest things pissed me off for hours on end. When coming off it - and I think I only took it about a month - I had awful headaches/spells of dizziness.

I don't really recall much in the way of withdrawal from Lexapro, which I demanded over Celexa.

[Razgovory]

Yes, actually.  When we're talking ultra-massive distribution of international household names like Wellbutrin or Avandia, so much of the company's going to be tied up in marketing that specific product that to believe the CEO isn't going to be looking over marketing's shoulder is, at best, naive.

We're not talking about a niche vaccine that's only being distributed to one affected area in isolation, where the team's just going to get a marketing plan rubber-stamped by the marketing department.

I think it is a bit unfair to assume that the CEO is going to oversee all marketing/sales efforts. And especially given the no-no that is promoting off label usage, it seems a bit of a stretch to think that a CEO would approve such a plan.

Okay, then perhaps we should just arrest people in marketing.  Or Marketing Research or whatever.

[garbon]

Okay, then perhaps we should just arrest people in marketing.  Or Marketing Research or whatever.

Maybe, I mean said marketers and sales personnel are the ones knowingly breaking the law. You'd probably be hard pressed to attribute such to a market researcher unless I guess they prepared a research report that advocated adopting the promotion of off-label uses.

[dps]

Got a question about this part:

Paxil was illegally promoted to patients under 18 when the drug wasn't approved for this age group

Now, my understanding was that once the FDA approves a drug, doctors aren't restricted to prescribing it for a certain purpose or to a certain group of patients.  For example, a few years ago when the FDA was being asked to approve Thalidomine as a medicine to help people undergoing chemo or radiation therapy from being constantly nauseated, there were fears that if it were approved, some doctors would stupidly prescribe it to pregnant women to combat morning sickness (which was what it was originally developed to do).  So if doctors could legally prescribe Paxil to patients under 18 (even if it wasn't specifically approved for them) what's the problem?

[garbon]

Got a question about this part:

Paxil was illegally promoted to patients under 18 when the drug wasn't approved for this age group

Now, my understanding was that once the FDA approves a drug, doctors aren't restricted to prescribing it for a certain purpose or to a certain group of patients.  For example, a few years ago when the FDA was being asked to approve Thalidomine as a medicine to help people undergoing chemo or radiation therapy from being constantly nauseated, there were fears that if it were approved, some doctors would stupidly prescribe it to pregnant women to combat morning sickness (which was what it was originally developed to do).  So if doctors could legally prescribe Paxil to patients under 18 (even if it wasn't specifically approved for them) what's the problem?

Issue is the promotion by GSK for use in patients under 18. Drug companies can only market to the indications that the FDA has approved not simply whatever patients the drug company might think it appropriate for.  If the FDA doesn't grant you a juvenile indication then you can't go out and tell doctors to prescribe it for their patients under 18.  Doctors, of course, are totally still able to do so, they just can't receive information about doing so from big pharma.