"GlaxoSmithKline LLC will pay $3 billion and plead guilty to promoting two popular drugs for unapproved uses and to failing to disclose important safety information on a third in the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history, the Justice Department said Monday.
Accompanying the criminal case was a civil settlement in which the government said the company's improper marketing included providing doctors with expensive resort vacations, European hunting trips, high-paid speaking tours and even tickets to a Madonna concert."
Apparently, GSK entered a guilty plea ("The company's guilty plea and sentence have to be approved by a federal court in Massachusetts."), but turned around and made a statement that sounds like they're recanting the guilty plea after the fact:
"In a statement, GlaxoSmithKline said it disagreed with some statements the Justice Department made in court papers. For example, the company said its settlement with the government does 'not constitute an admission of any liability or wrongdoing in the selling and marketing of Lamictal, Zofran, Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, Valtrex, Avandia or Advair products. The government also made allegations about Paxil, Wellbutrin that the company did not admit.' "
"Merck has known for a decade that its mumps vaccine is "far less effective" than it tells the government, and it falsified test results and sold millions of doses of "questionable efficacy," flooding and monopolizing the market, a primary caregiver claims in a federal antitrust class action.
Alabama-based Chatom Primary Care sued Merck on Monday, the week after the unsealing of a False Claims Act complaint two relators filed in 2010."
Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists; company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit
No, we cannot trust the industry. It spends more on marketing and advertising than it does on legitimate new-drug research. And then take a look at many of the so-called "new" drugs on the market. They are simply cleaned up mono-isomeric compounds from the original compound that contained r/s isomers, i.e. Celexa --> Lexapro. I was able to do this kind of science in a basic organic chemistry class. Let's face it, they want to make money and if they cured and/or eliminated disease, they would end their own business. These companies make lots of money from keeping the general population uneducated, mildly ill and scared. Bahh...humbug ;)
Mom to DS 9/18/09 and DS 3/28/13
Laugh it up, fuzzball
Why Isn't The US "Free" Press Reporting Vaccine problems?
autism listed in package insert:
Isn't this is more of a problem with the press not being interested in science results and spending more time reporting on the latest celebrity break up?
Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.
I'm not sure what you're quoting in the original post, Taximom. It doesn't exactly match the NYT article. Anyway, if they settled civilly then it may not legally be an admission of wrongdoing and they may be able to get away with making statements like that. I'm not a lawyer nor involved in this case, so I don't know about the details.
"Trust" is such a broad word and that is such a broad question. Can we BLINDLY trust them? No, we probably shouldn't BLINDLY trust anybody. Can we trust them on some things? Perhaps. And what's the alternative? There are few independent sources of research on drugs because the funding isn't really there, so we are frequently going to be dealing with data that might be biased and companies that should act ethically but may be committing ethics violations. If we don't trust "the system", we're probably going to be trusting someone else who might be just as bad, if not worse.
I favor a healthy skepticism.