More enormous settlements from drug companies

I heard this story on BBC Radio 5 last night and thought it would be everywhere today but I've had to look for it.

In the face of this kind of story I really don't understand why such a fuss is made about tobacco companies covering up evidence that their product is harmful. Since people inhale tobacco smoke into their lungs and quite often feel ill the first time they smoke, tobacco itself is not generally expected to help improve people's health. Even before the days before tobacco control could afford to studies week after week telling us (again) how dangerous smoking is, there can be few people who seriously believed that their health was not at some risk in the medium to long term as a result of smoking.

Only last year GlaxoSmithKlein and now Johnson & Johnson and subsidiaries have now settled multi-billion dollar lawsuits on the grounds of fraud. For companies of such stupendous size and with such stupendous drugs to market drugs for uses other than those that they were designed for should be a matter for criminal liability:

In its plea agreement, J&J subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals admitted that it promoted Risperdal to nursing home doctors and nurses to control erratic behavior in seniors with dementia between 2002 and 2003. ... 

In a separate civil complaint, the government alleged that J&J and Janssen also promoted Risperdal and a similar drug Invega, to control numerous behavior problems in seniors, children and the mentally disabled between 1999 and 2005.

Not only did the charges relate to unlawful marketing, but also the targets were patients whose capacity to understand what they were being prescribed was limited. The report says that the purpose was 'controlling behavior problems', but this involves messing about with brain chemistry and should not be done using the wrong drug (even using the 'right' drug is probably questionable in many cases).

This seems an unforgiveable breach of professional practice. People are entitled to expect better health from prescription drugs in a way that is simply not true of tobacco.

This settlement goes back to cases that took place nearly fifteen years ago. Clearly the profit imperative is very strong in the pharmaceutical market. Somebody will no doubt say that this is a 'few isolated cases', whereas the whole of tobacco is suspect. But it should not happen with pharmaceutical drugs at all, and more importantly tobacco does not set out to be medicinal.

Another dopamine-blocker to stop enjoyment from smoking on the way

LONDON (Reuters) on a new drug from giants GlaxoSmithKlein:

An experimental drug that blocks certain brain receptors can reduce nicotine cravings in addicted rats and baboons - a finding researchers say could lead to new medicines to help people stop smoking for good.

The candidate drug, called GSK598809, belongs to a class of compounds that block a specific type of dopamine receptor in key areas of the brain linked to tobacco addiction. 

[...] 

Previous studies have shown that nicotine in tobacco smoke increases the release of the brain chemical dopamine in the ventral striatum, midbrain and pallidum - all parts of the brain thought to play a key role in getting smokers hooked.

Didn't they learn anything from Champix (other than that pharmaceutical drugs regardless of their track record are still considered to be a lower risk to health than smoking?)

Holding pharmaceuticals responsible

A vaccine against smoking is on the way. It could be years before the public get access to it because of safety plans – just as well really, as the idea of vaccinating someone against the pleasure experienced by a smoker is a serious misuse of medical science in my book.

It might be less serious if there were not an active campaign to denormalise smoking. At least then we would be more clear that people were attempting to quit for their own reasons rather than as a result of official bullying. On the other hand, if there were no campaign of denormalisation, there would be less money thrown at anti-smoking research and this hare-brained idea might never have taken root.

The problem is that manufacturers of drugs can do absolutely no wrong. No doubt motivated by the loftiest of ideals, the whole train gets diverted on to a branch line dedicated to the pursuit of profit, rather than the saving of life. GlaxoSmithKlein has this week been found guilty of 'off-label marketing' (encouraging the use of drugs in cases they were not designed to treat), and also:

The company also conceded charges that it held back data and made unsupported safety claims over its diabetes drug Avandia.

This is fraudulent: dangerous activity, calculated deception of its customers in the medical profession that might have endangered lives. It is known that prescribed drug use causes thousands of fatalities every year. Some of these deaths are a result of bad combinations of drugs, and it is unknown how many deaths result from drugs with a hidden adverse safety record.

GSK (which manufactures smoking cessation drug Zyban) has had to pay $3 billion dollars in settlement. 

GSK said in a statement it would pay the fines through existing cash resources.

Not really a struggle then? A slap on the wrist and a few staff kicked out? Other parts of the world do things differently: China, for instance, where a senior executive of a pharmaceutical company was sentenced to life imprisonment, commuted from the death sentence. This reflects the seriousness of the crime both by a commensurate penalty, and its target – the top executive, not someone on the company's payroll. 


GSK will pay this from petty cash. I wouldn't take that anti-smoking jag if I were a smoker, nor would I be happy to see it recommended for use in children.