|A la carte meals, conference expenses etc are part of the 'inducement culture' of Big Pharma.|
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder - Medications and their Dangerous Side-Effects. Description: An in-depth report on the causes, ...
A PSYCHOLOGICAL FORMULATION OF MENTAL DISTRESS - THE HPP MODEL COMMENTARY - (TRAXSON, PARKER, ROWLAND AND MATTHEWS 2011)-------"What we need as professionals is a naturalistic narrative of needs NOT a dysfunctional discussion of dubiously diagnosed disorders." - A menu of alternatives to medication is proposed to trigger creative thinking about the options available to deal with behavioural difficulties.THE HPP MODEL OF MENTAL HEALTH AND WELLBEING FOR YOUNG PEOPLE FEATURES OF THE HPP MODEL - A multi-dimensional discursive appro...
DSM5, PSYCHIATRY and MEDICAL ETHICS : Is using psychotropics for normal behavioural patterns in kids + social control unethical! The Stanford University 4 key principles are clearly breached in the U.S. and the U.K.for children on psychotropic drugs - unethical practice is the 'trump card' in the campaign against the influence of DSM5 and the safeguarding of our children in the U.K.and the U.S. - Let's deal our children a better hand!-Map of U.S. showing skewed prescription rate for ADHD - (low prescription use in west, with the sun and surf outlets, and higher across ...
PLEASE SIGN THIS IMPORTANT PETITION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH - We request an urgent review by the DoH of the use of Risperidone with young boys identified on the autistic spectrum.PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW TO SIGN THE PETITION - LINK: https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/an-urgent-review-of-the-pr...
Why No One Is Satisfied With Psychiatric Diagnoses Main Category: Psychology / Psychiatry The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Me...
Many authors of psychiatry bible have industry ties 21:00 13 March 2012 by ...
THE MENTAL HEALTH DEBATE = A GREAT ARTICLE - "At War With Ourselves"- By Rufus May, a Psychologist from Bradford U.K. - Courtesy of Mad in America WebsiteAt War With Ourselves Rufus May September 15, 2013 If we call someone mentally ill, in some ways we may b...
DR ALLEN FRANCES (LEAD EDITOR OF THE DSM4 PANEL) - COINS THE TERM - 'FALSE EPIDEMICS OF CHILDHOOD DISORDERS' DUE TO DSM4.DR ALLAN FRANCES ADMITS: " WE MADE MISTAKES WITH DSM4 WHICH HAVE HAD TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES FOR CHILDREN.&quo...
Total Downloads Worldwide
Saturday, 6 April 2013
BIG PHARMA GIVES FINANCIAL INDUCEMENTS TO MEDICS IN THE U.K.- "Drug companies pay doctors £40m for travel and expenses," Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:29 EDT - courtesy of the Guardian website
Drug companies pay doctors £40m for travel and expenses
Fri, 04/05/2013 - 15:29 EDT - The Guardian
Total spend on consultancy fees and junkets by 35 suppliers revealed by trade body in move to greater transparencyDrug companies are paying an estimated £40m a year to British doctors in service fees, flights, hotel and other travel expenses, according to the trade body that represents pharmaceutical companies.The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) said that most of the 44 biggest companies had now revealed how much they paid doctors to help market their drugs. Its aggregated total of £40m is based on 35 suppliers who have shared precise information with the body and estimates for the rest.The largest British group, GlaxoSmithKline, spent £1.9m on fees for advice and consultancy on 1,517 UK-based doctors, an average of £1,252 each. It also sponsored 1,022 doctors and other healthcare professionals to attend scientific conferences and meetings, at a total cost of £887,294 – an average of £868 per trip.Doctors have always denied that taking drug company money influences their judgement in any way about a medicine, but suspicions have lingered.Doctors sometimes ask for sponsorship to go to international meetings, which they argue they need to attend to keep up with developments in their field. Their hospitals cannot afford to pay their flights and hotel bills, they say.Thousands of doctors have their flights, registration fees and hotels paid for when they attend major international conferences on cancer or cardiology. They are transported to top restaurants by their sponsoring company and socialise with its staff. Many of the speakers who take to the platform to talk about the benefits of new medicines are senior doctors who are earning a consultancy fee from a pharmaceutical firm.AstraZeneca, the other major British company, separates out the payments from its UK office and those from its "global teams and international affiliates". The UK office paid £671,400 in fees to 903 doctors plus £30,200 for their travel and hotel bills. Some doctors carried out more than one engagement. Their average earnings including expenses came to £776.96.But those who were paid by the global teams did far better. A total of £563,000 including expenses was paid out to 93 individuals, giving an average of £6,053.76. However, the 93 people were involved in 304 activities, which gave them an average fee, including expenses, of £1,851.97.Unlike AstraZeneca, GSK said it had added in payments from its offices abroad, because many of the doctors who receive payment for advice and consultation are global experts.AstraZeneca, however, did not sponsor any doctors to go to conferences in 2012, a major departure for a pharmaceutical company, because the bad publicity surrounding drug company junkets made it rethink its policy.In 2005, the Commons health select committee warned in a report that the industry's sponsorship of doctors and other medical staff had drug promotion as its motive and could lead to the unsafe prescribing of drugs such as Vioxx, the arthritis drug which was found to cause heart attacks.AstraZeneca only supports "a limited number of doctors to attend international conferences in connection with contracted services", it said, which means they would earn fees for speaking rather than being sponsored to listen.It said it was not offering lavish expenses. "We have embedded robust controls in our process for supporting travel and accommodation to ensure that it is only provided in a lawful manner that is consistent with our commitment to integrity," AstraZeneca said.Andrew Powrie-Smith, director of the ABPI, said he did not think having to publish what the pharmaceutical industry spent on doctors would tend to make most companies less generous.Powrie-Smith said: "Industry in the UK is proud of its collaboration with health professionals. A fifth of the top 100 medicines in the UK have come from this collaboration. But there is increasing demand for transparency in the relationship. I don't see that it will have a particularly negative impact over their willingness to support medical education."At the moment, drug companies are only required to publish their total outlay on doctors. By 2016, however, the European trade body is expecting them to publish the names of the individual doctors they pay. If this happens, the industry will have moved further and faster than the NHS on transparency. All hospital trusts are supposed to keep a register of payments to their staff in case of conflicts of interest, but not all are complete and they are not always available to the public.The ABPI agreed in 2010 that all companies would publish their total payments to healthcare professionals.
GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales
Sales reps in the US encouraged to mis-sell antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin.
GlaxoSmithKline has admitted to corporate misconduct in the US. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters
The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn (£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on Thursday.
The company encouraged sales reps in the US to mis-sell three drugs to doctors and lavished hospitality and kickbacks on those who agreed to write extra prescriptions, including trips to resorts in Bermuda, Jamaica and California.
The company admitted corporate misconduct over the antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma drug Advair.
Psychiatrists and their partners were flown to five-star hotels, on all-expenses-paid trips where speakers, paid up to $2,500 to attend, gave presentations on the drugs. They could enjoy diving, golf, fishing and other extra activities arranged by the company.
GSK also paid for articles on its drugs to appear in medical journals and "independent" doctors were hired by the company to promote the treatments, according to court documents.
Paxil – which was only approved for adults – was promoted as suitable for children and teenagers by the company despite trials that showed it was ineffective, according to prosecutors.
Children and teenagers are only treated with antidepressants in exceptional circumstances due to an increased risk of suicide.
GSK held eight lavish three-day events in 2000 and 2001 at hotels in Puerto Rico, Hawaii and Palm Springs, California, to promote the drug to doctors for unapproved use.
Those who attended were given $750, free board and lodging and access to activities including snorkelling, golf, deep-sea fishing, rafting, glass-bottomed boat rides, hot-air balloon rides and, on one trip, a tour of the Bacardi rum distillery, all paid for by GSK.
Air fares were also covered for doctors and spouses, in most cases, and speakers at the event were paid $2,500 each.
Before one event, the compere said: "We have a wonderful and unforgettable night planned. Without giving it all away, I can tell you – you'll be experiencing a taste of luxury."
Not everyone was impressed, though. One psychiatrist complained: "The style of the conference would have been suitable for a convention of cosmetics sales reps; this is supposed to be a scientific meeting. To me, the music, lights, videos, emcees are offputting and a distraction, even demeaning."
GSK also published an article in a medical journal that mis-stated the drug's safety for children, despite the journal asking several times to change the wording.
Copies of the misleading article were given to sales representatives to pass on to doctors in the hope that it would secure more business. Tickets to sports matches were exchanged for discussions about Paxil, with one doctor writing: "Dinner and a Yankee game with family. Talked about Paxil studies in children."
Despite knowing that three trials had failed to prove its effectiveness on children, Glaxo published a report entitled "Positioning Paxil in the adolescent depression market – getting a headstart".
The second drug to be mis-sold was Wellbutrin – another antidepressant aimed only at adults.
The prosecution said the company paid $275,000 to Dr Drew Pinsky, who hosted a popular radio show, to promote the drug on his programme, in particular for unapproved uses – GSK claimed it could treat weight gain, sexual dysfunction, ADHD and bulimia.
Pinsky, who had not declared his GSK income to listeners, said Wellbutrin could give women 60 orgasms a night. A study of 25 people using the drug for eight weeks was pushed by a PR firm hired by GSK, generating headlines including "Bigger than Viagra? It sounds too good to be true: a drug to help you stop smoking, stay happy and lose weight" and "Now That is a Wonder Drug".
When a GSK-funded doctor refused to remove safety concerns about the drug from an article he was writing, GSK removed his funding.
The investigation also found that sales representatives set up "Operation Hustle" to promote the drug to doctors, including trips to Jamaica, Bermuda and one talk coinciding with the annual Boston Tall Ships flotilla. Speakers were paid up to $2,500 for a one-hour presentation – up to three times a day – earning far more than they did working in their surgeries.
One speaker, Dr James Pradko, was paid nearly $1.5m by GSK over three years to speak about the drug. He also produced a DVD funded by the company, which was claimed to be independent. It was shown more than 900 times to doctors.
The hope was that doctors would be persuaded to prescribe the drug to patients over its rivals.
The last drug under scrutiny was Advair, GSK's bestselling asthma treatment.
The drug was launched to sales representatives in Las Vegas using images of slot machines, emphasising the bonuses they could make through sales. At the event, the then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said: "What is the number one reason why you should love to be a GSK sales rep? Advair's bonus plan. Yeah!"
The company pushed the drug as the ultimate answer for tackling asthma, saying it should be the drug of choice for treating all cases. However, it had been approved only for treating severe cases, as other drugs were more suitable for mild asthma. GSK published material calling mild asthma a "myth" in an attempt to boost sales, according to the prosecution.
About $600,000 a year was given to district sales representatives for entertainment, including regular golf lessons, Nascar racing days, fishing trips, and baseball and basketball tickets.
US attorney Carmin Ortiz said: "The sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations [and] paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to tickets to Madonna concerts."
GSK chief executive Andrew Witty said: "Whilst these [matters] originate in a different era for the company, they cannot and will not be ignored. On behalf of GlaxoSmithKline I want to express our regret and reiterate that we have learnt from the mistakes that were made."
Despite the large fine, $3bn is far less than the profits made from the drugs. Avandia has made $10.4bn in sales, Paxil took $11.6bn, and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9bn during the years covered by the settlement, according to IMS Health.
The inadequacies of relying solely on market forces for our drugs are clearer than ever. This scandal should prompt a rethink