Any comments on GSK Killing kids for profit guys?..

You may feel aggrieved for Medicine. I’m not exactly cock-a-hoop for the Law, either. We’ve all contributed, I think.

Matt

Effectively this is government saying that scientific misconduct does not matter.

The MHRA investigation (for what it is worth) also neatly sidesteps many of the most blatant examples of fakery, as well as the corruption of the scientific literature upon which doctors reply.

This is why mandatory reporting (even if it were possible to enforce in this Alice in Wonderland envoronment) is almost meaningless if the literature remains corrupted and corruptible.

In the words of the author Thomas Pynchon:

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”

We play their game when we debate the questions they’re asking. He who sets the ground rules, is bound to win, and winning in this instance means killing people and getting away with it. That way we don’t start asking the wrong questions. Questions about ourselves and about my profession of medicine.

Aubrey

This comment from Woods to Garnier says it all as far as I am concerned. There are plenty of people in the industry who would fully agree, and who act accordingly. So do many companies. But the bad actors cause bad consequences - for patients and for the industry.

The letter remains naive, however. The “unambiguous force of law” sounds impressive. But it has rarely worked alone as a way to ensure moral responsibility. For those inclined, it will just be another game with which to play cat and mouse. And if the mouse wins, it will be the ‘cost of doing business.’

My own core efforts have involved insuring legal accountability. But I am aware that, in the end, much more is needed.

Speaking personally, I wouldn’t trust the MHRA to police and enforce any new legislation, irrespective of whether it was the best, most tightly drawn ever passed.

Matt

I’m not sure about that. Any SAEs occuring in trials authorized in the EU must be reported on the European dbase. Also (and this may only apply to EU companies), under Regulation 34 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trial) Regulations, where a trial is held in the UK, but there are trials of the same drug elsewhere (including the US, presumably - it’s difficult to tell from the wording of the Regulations), then any adverse reactions occurring in the “foreign” trials must also be reported on the European dbase.

Matt

GlaxoSmithKline will not be prosecuted for not informing UK regulators about safety issues concerning its drug Seroxat. The British Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has announced that the decision was taken because there was “no realistic prospect of a conviction in this case,” as the legislation at the time, in 2003, was not comprehensive enough to force companies to disclose all of their clinical data to regulators.

http://www.enews20.com/news_Glaxo_Dodges_Prosecution_over_Seroxat_Risk_Data_06348.html

No mater what way you look at it, its corporate manslaughter …
The UK powers are claiming there was was insufficient laws to prosecute, not insufficient evidence..
Personally i feel for the families of the dead children..
I know of one personally..
Please read the story of Sharise Gatchell..

http://www.gevil.netopti.net/

If Ford sold cars with dodgy brakes and people were being killed because of this, and then they were found to have known but not warned, would they get away with it?..