I have not read any information from Amgen, the only information I read was that which was contained in Ms. Ferrante’s “Complaint” and the “Demand for a Jury Trial” by the States pursuing legal action against Amgen.
I realize that the statements contained in Ms. Ferrante’s “Complaint” regarding Dr. Gottlieb were for the purpose of demonstrating Ms. Ferrante’s marketing abilities and not as an admission of guilt in a kickback scheme.
The problem I see with Ms. Ferrante’s Complaint against Amgen is that there appears to be a lag between the time that Amgen changed its marketing strategy (Complaint is vague but an inference can be drawn that it was somewhere around 2002) and the adverse actions taken against her (2005). The only other item that may be construed as an adverse action is the reduction in Ms. Ferrante’s sales territory, however in the context of her “Complaint” it does not appear that she is alleging this to be an adverse action.
Just one final word on the subject and that is in the Aranesp case medical providers were parties to the kickback scheme as it was the medical providers who received kickbacks in return for prescribing greater quantities of Aranesp.
In fact Attorney General Andrew Cuomo specifically stated that Amgen induced third party providers to overbill Medicaid (attached link).

http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2009/oct/oct30a_09.html

I am sure that you must know that Dr. Gottlieb is a highly respected physician who always followed the rules and never participated in any questionable marketing tactics. And if you didn’t, you do now.

I am certain that Ms. Ferrante has never even mentioned Dr. Gottlieb in her arbitration, as the only one who perpetrated any wrongdoing was the company, AMGEN, not the physicians.

It is interesting to me as an observer of this and other whistleblower cases, how AMGEN has tried to portray the doctors in a negative light, and then blame the whistleblowers for “throwing doctors under the bus”.

You folks should stick to the facts!

I am just reading the Complaint, which only contains allegations of fraud. The evidence of medicaid fraud involves another product (Aranesp) and not Enbrel.
However, it would be reasonable to assume that the kickback scheme utilized in the marketing of Aranesp was also used in the marketing of Enbrel especially if Ms. Ferrante is throwing Dr. Alice Gottlieb under the bus.

You must be looking at the wrong case. There are many documents which corroborate the Medicaid fraud allegations, as well as all of the other off-label allegations.

The CHF data was not only based on post marketing anaylsis, but on two studies conducted prior to Enbrel’s release. As for the additional A/E’s, this representative always gave full disclosure when providing information to physician customers, and made sure that only the appropritate patients were given the drug. Otherwise, she might still have a job.

In addition, the studies on Enbrel demonstrate a wide variety of possible adverse events, including tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis and a host of other significant adverse events. Her only claim is for congestive heart failure and apparently she had no trouble marketing Enbrel even knowing the scope of the adverse events associated with this drug. In addition Amgen conducted trial studies on the use of Enbrel as a treatment for CHS. The study was discontinued for lack of efficacy and did confirm a higher incidence of CHS. However, a second study failed to corroborate the findings of the initial study on CHS.
Ms. Ferrante’s conclusions on CHS seem to be based primarily on post marketing results, which I believe would not be sufficent to prover her claim unless she has a smoking gun document from Amgen that recognizes the fact that Enbrel is a primary cause of CHS.
Finally, I am assuming, based upon the compalint that the Medicaid Fraud charge is implied snce she offers no direct evidence in her allegation to corroborate this charge. Again I realize that her attorney’s are onlt postulating the possibility of possible fraud.
Finally, I assume she signed an Arbitration agreement and she is seeking to bypass arbitration by pressing her court case under the Public Policy doctrine exemption to Arbitration rulings. The problem here is that Arbitration procedures are sanctioned by law and it would appear to be somewhat premature for her to be claiming a public policy argument prior to an actual arbitration decision.
i must admit my arbitration experience is in the field of Collective Bargaining Agremeents and individual arbitration contracts may differ.