Faced in 2012 with questions about the $3 Billion fine imposed on GSK – triggered by a sequence of events starting with Study 329, – is it just the cost of doing business? Andrew Witty snapped back:
“Although corporate malfeasance cases end up looking very big, they often have their origin in just… one or two people who didn’t quite do the right thing. It’s not about the big piece. The 100,000 people who work for GSK are just like you, right? I’m sure everybody who reads the BMJ has friends who work for drug companies. They’re normal people… Many of them are doctors.
This brochure appears to be an internal advert for the 100,000 people who work for GSK produced in the middle of the Panorama series of programs.
The text is an object of study in its own right – the basis for a doctoral dissertation.
Note ear ring.
See the Famous Grouse Lecture on Study329.org for context. This images and brochure were generated at a time when GSK was under intense internal pressure. They came from one of the 100,000 just like you and me.Share this:
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
When I was first alerted to these images I kind of felt bile rise. After watching the presentation, and hearing the story behind the images, the bile became projected.
Now I have had a few days to condense the whole presentation and these images I have to thank GSK. They have clearly shown (in these series of images) how weak they are.
One small, Scottish ankle-biter (Shelley Jofre) caused one big, (British) pharmaceutical company to go out, find a suitable image (youngster who appears to be off-label fodder) and then to disseminate this information internally to its employees.
I think GSK knew how big the Seroxat scandal had become, they knew there would be whispers in the corridor and fingers being pointed. They had to convince their staff that GSK were a caring company, put on this earth to make people “do more, feel better, live longer.”
Doubt set in, that element of doubt stemmed from Jofre’s digging and unearthing of GSK’s nefarious plotting.
I wonder just how old the boy was in the image – I wonder if, like the mysterious American woman (Paxil birth defects) he can be found?
Shouldn’t be too hard to contact modeling agencies and to locate this young man (probably in his early to late thirties now)
Great presentation – Jaw-dropping stuff.
The above is a crock of sxxt, they make it sound like there are no side effects at all. Here’s just a few I suffered from:
Electric Shocks Sensations
Loss of Weight
Low Blood Pressure
Loss of Friends
4-5 hours Sleep
And the list goes on……………and on…………..and on
Exactly the same here, Paxil destroyed my life completely and I’m trying to get it back. I was on it for 20+ years – I took 1 1/2 years to slowy taper myself off it and now I’ve been 6 months clear of Paxil. The past 2 months have been extremely difficult, I’m not the same person, I can’t think, concentrate, can’t sleep, high anxiety, have no zest for life, no more interests, constant suicidal ideations, total apathy…and the list the goes on. I’m truly concerned what will become of me, I’ve been off work for 2 1/2 years and will be going back in November. So so scared. I wish I could sue Glaxo and stop the production of this medication. It literally changes a life for the worse. I have no more words to express how much it affected me in a negative way.
This has to be one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen (and after blogging about GSK, antidepressants, and suicide, for 8 years, I have read some really disturbing things).
read my post on it
Reading through Dr David Healy’s latest post about the forthcoming rewrite of Paxil (Seroxat) study 329, I couldn’t help but be absolutely sickened by the GSK Seroxat advert which I hadn’t seen before (see below). I had no idea that GSK actually addressed the BBC Panorama Documentaries about Seroxat in their advertising of the drug after the series. I am absolutely appalled at this advertisement. Furthermore, the image that they chose to use (when adding insult to injury to those who were unfortunate enough to have been prescribed Seroxat) is of what seems to be a very young man; so young, in fact, he could be a teenager. It’s strangely fitting, that I discover this horrible ad, shortly after publishing my posts about Greg Thorpe and the department of Justice legal complaint about GSK promoting Paxil to kids. Greg is the GSK whistle-blower who was so appalled at GSK pushing Paxil and Wellbutrin on kids that he decided to blow the whistle on the whole company. His actions resulted in a 3 billion fine for GSK, but even that didn’t cause a dent in their profits. It was merely a slap on the wrist.
See Here and Here.
With this ad, (which, according to David Healy, was for internal use only, presumably to convince GSK’s reps to continue prescribing Seroxat) it’s as if GSK are rubbing people’s noses in it, it’s as if they are saying a very big F*ck You to all those dead, harmed and damaged by Seroxat: are they trying to portray that they don’t give a damn at all about it being prescribed to young people? are they blatantly advertising that they encourage it? I have no idea how this shameful advert got past the advertising standards authority, and furthermore I’d really like to know what the MHRA think of GSK referencing them also in this sick ad. The whole thing has a very unsavory aura, and I really didn’t think that GSK could get anymore sociopathic, but this ad is really what I would call the definition of evil. Read it fully (particularly the second one) and let me know in the comments if you think that GSK are one very sick company…
The majority of the GSK employees who saw this internal morale booster , like the majority of nurses and mental health professionals I worked with at a Harvard affiliated Children’s hospital in Boston, did *not* know what lay beneath the 2001 published article on Study 329. It is my direct experience that has led me to believe that all methods of confusing, brainwashing, oppressing professionals and the whitewashing of every questionable adverse event (for GSK Panorama was an adverse event– on my unit it was the full gamut of adverse effects of SSRIs)– all of these tactics, plus a hearty bit of praise (bonuses at GSK– retreats for the staff to beautiful seaside inns for me and my colleagues)– ALL of these contrived smoke and mirrors tactics were the willful actions of a few top level managers/psychiatrists. The beauty of Study 329 is the naming of some of these slime buckets. At long last!!
With the raw data of this clinical trial kept secret–and all of the bogus reasons given for this practice, there is bound to be lots of room for grand standing by the prominent leaders at GSK– and the cherry picked AJCAP article by line — line up. BUT, the most damning part of this scandal, at least to me, is the grand standing that protected the guilty by those who definitely should have taken a peak at the raw data– AND paid a bit of attention to the fallout of the Panorama series. This is where I begin to lose my composure– I think of the years after 2004 when kids who became manic after stating an SSRI were diagnosed bipolar– and immediately drugged to the gills with *mood stabilizers* and *atypical anti-psychotics*– and virtually destroyed. Where I was positioned during this phase 2 willful deception, I saw the faces of evil. One, in particular, sat on the committee that convened to uphold the findings of the original article – reported or edited by a ghostwriter in January 2004.
I have to say that I find the sickest of the lot in the field of psychiatry. They willfully ignored what was right in front of their eyes and with alacrity, blew off their duty to protect these poor kids from further harm. This, I will never forget.
They really make me think of the Nazi regime. For me any company thats having to ram propaganda down its own employees throats … well it says it all. Theres something seriously wrong if you have to brainwash your own employees.
I am afraid that this kind of attitude is alive and well wherever we turn Lisa – it’s just that we like to believe in the integrity of people in high places until we find out the truth. Local Education Authorities set the number of pupils that can be found dyslexic or in need of a statement of Special Educational Needs in any given area at any given time – does that give a true reflection of need? Only a very brave Ed. Psych. will speak out and demand the need to exceed that number.The same pupils, on attending Further education colleges would be found to have severe needs – why? Simply because funding was then available to do so. -The term ‘autistic’ used to apply only to the most severe cases until extra funding was allocated, then, suddenly, cases of autism or autistic spectrum disorder were found in high numbers – same pupils, different criteria. I know that we cannot compare these examples with GSK but it boils down to the same thing – money. Not enough of it and people will, in the main, forget about the human face of their positions; plenty of it rolling their way and all that matters is how quickly their purses can be filled!