Posts
A Reuters’ story tells about John Kopchinski, a Gulf War veteran from Texas who later became a disgruntled sales representative for Pfizer. John found Pfizer’s sales tactics hard to swallow. As he explains it:
"In the Army I was expected to protect people at all costs....At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives.”
Unable to live down to Pfizer’s ethics, he blew the whistle on ‘em.
Click link for full story.
Showing posts with label whistleblowers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label whistleblowers. Show all posts
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Cigna Executive becomes "Whistleblower"
Think about this:
Government agencies and universities research diseases and come up with innovative medicines and treatments in parallel to the private research from the pharmaceutical industry. The drugs and innovations are then negotiated over to for profit business, i.e. the pharmaceutical industry, who expertly mass produce them and bring them to the public. Sometimes as direct distributions, but more often than not, through distribution chains, which jack up the costs, as they stock up their for profit owned pharmacies who tack on their profits as well. Depending on the drug, the consumer may wind up paying double the price than that at which it left the Pharmaceutical manufacturing plant. Then we have the insurance companies, as the article notes " Confusing customers and dumping the sick: all to appease the investors on Wall Street". In short doing what they can to not pay the bill.
But what happens to the sick patient?
Glad Wendell Potter has had enough - many of us have....
Government agencies and universities research diseases and come up with innovative medicines and treatments in parallel to the private research from the pharmaceutical industry. The drugs and innovations are then negotiated over to for profit business, i.e. the pharmaceutical industry, who expertly mass produce them and bring them to the public. Sometimes as direct distributions, but more often than not, through distribution chains, which jack up the costs, as they stock up their for profit owned pharmacies who tack on their profits as well. Depending on the drug, the consumer may wind up paying double the price than that at which it left the Pharmaceutical manufacturing plant. Then we have the insurance companies, as the article notes " Confusing customers and dumping the sick: all to appease the investors on Wall Street". In short doing what they can to not pay the bill.
But what happens to the sick patient?
Glad Wendell Potter has had enough - many of us have....
Sunday, April 5, 2009
SOCIOPATHY AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN PHARMA
A Note on Pharmaporn
Every few days, it seems we get a new one-liner from the annals of trial materials. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” said a Merck insider about Vioxx critics. “"Thus far, we have buried Trials 15, 31, 56…”, writes John at AstraZeneca. Trial 15, as it turns out, showed the diabetic risks of Seroquel. This is the same study about which we also read company players congratulating each other for their “smoke and mirrors” success in downplaying its significance.
The examples go on. Endlessly. But what I am always left with is the question of what we do with such “material.” All the defense arguments have a degree of truth. It would be a rare company (or individual) who didn’t write a bad-looking email at some point. Materials of this sort sometimes reveal what is a widely shared marketing plan. At other times, they may represent the views of a lone sociopath.
Perhaps the most recurring theme—when the issue of fraud or cover-up is broached in these communications—is that other companies are doing it “so why shouldn’t we.” All of us learned from our mothers about what “just because others are doing it” means. The relevance here is the question of whether these assertions are rationalizations (and, inevitably, self-fulfilling) and/or whether they represent an accurate snapshot of standard industry practice, at least in the marketing-of-blockbusters arena.
Understandably, people from within industry almost never comment on this question. That was true on Pharmalot when there was plenty of opportunity. Again, this makes sense for all the relevant reasons—the great majority of people in a company have no involvement with such goings-on; there is the anticipation of vicious push-back by critics; there is probably also the anticipation of sanctions from within the company if one’s identity is uncovered.
The rest of us are left with the question of what to make of these bits and pieces. Like porn of other kinds, there is undeniably a certain titillation in the face other people’s corruption. Many of us carry an “inner church lady.”
But lives are, indeed, on the line. My guess is that nothing good will happen to change these aspects of industry short of revulsion within companies robust enough to clean up their scuz. Strongly as I oppose preemption, I think that it will take whistleblowers, not private plaintiffs, to do the job. Only insiders can distinguish, and document, what represents the views of lone cowpokes versus the orchestrated strategy of a significant coterie of senior management.
Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the most common.
Every few days, it seems we get a new one-liner from the annals of trial materials. “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” said a Merck insider about Vioxx critics. “"Thus far, we have buried Trials 15, 31, 56…”, writes John at AstraZeneca. Trial 15, as it turns out, showed the diabetic risks of Seroquel. This is the same study about which we also read company players congratulating each other for their “smoke and mirrors” success in downplaying its significance.
The examples go on. Endlessly. But what I am always left with is the question of what we do with such “material.” All the defense arguments have a degree of truth. It would be a rare company (or individual) who didn’t write a bad-looking email at some point. Materials of this sort sometimes reveal what is a widely shared marketing plan. At other times, they may represent the views of a lone sociopath.
Perhaps the most recurring theme—when the issue of fraud or cover-up is broached in these communications—is that other companies are doing it “so why shouldn’t we.” All of us learned from our mothers about what “just because others are doing it” means. The relevance here is the question of whether these assertions are rationalizations (and, inevitably, self-fulfilling) and/or whether they represent an accurate snapshot of standard industry practice, at least in the marketing-of-blockbusters arena.
Understandably, people from within industry almost never comment on this question. That was true on Pharmalot when there was plenty of opportunity. Again, this makes sense for all the relevant reasons—the great majority of people in a company have no involvement with such goings-on; there is the anticipation of vicious push-back by critics; there is probably also the anticipation of sanctions from within the company if one’s identity is uncovered.
The rest of us are left with the question of what to make of these bits and pieces. Like porn of other kinds, there is undeniably a certain titillation in the face other people’s corruption. Many of us carry an “inner church lady.”
But lives are, indeed, on the line. My guess is that nothing good will happen to change these aspects of industry short of revulsion within companies robust enough to clean up their scuz. Strongly as I oppose preemption, I think that it will take whistleblowers, not private plaintiffs, to do the job. Only insiders can distinguish, and document, what represents the views of lone cowpokes versus the orchestrated strategy of a significant coterie of senior management.
Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the most common.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)