Thursday, 8 May 2014

Pfizer eyes on Astra Zeneca for what purpose?

Many of us who are involved in trying to help people harmed by the products of the pharmaceutical industry are aware of tactics and cover ups the average patient is totally unaware of. For some reason people think if a drug is licensed then it must be safe. They have no idea only selected clinical trials are published and these may be rigged to favour a drug or that serious adverse events are undisclosed.

Furthermore the cries of how expensive it is for research and development for new drugs fail to include details of how much is spent on development of NEW drugs as opposed to ME TO drugs. Me To drugs are copies of drugs making money, already provided by other manufacturers and do not guarantee improvement in efficacy or safety of action.

The two examples below are to show 1. How GlaxoSmithKlyne made it clear they could pull out of the UK if pressure built up...and
2. how Pfizer is soon to be in court over their behaviour. One wonders how many people will be laid off if they are found guilty and have to face large fines.

If Pfizer takes over Astra Zeneca they could behave in the way GSK did before and the MHRA drugs regulator depends on the industry for funds.  Hopefully all the MPs are not so naive as the Prime Minister appears to be.

This paper is published by the RCP available on the Internet and we have copied a small section below.


Royal College of Physicians. Innovating for health: patients, physicians,
the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS. Report of a Working Party. London: RCP, 2009

Richard Horton (Chair and author of the report)
Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet

1.14 When safety concerns about GlaxoSmithKline’s anti-diabetes drug, Avandia, were
reported, the company’s then chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, blamed the media for igniting
debates about drug safety before scientists had time to give their professional opinion.He went
on to issue a warning that ‘other countries are trying to attract our best jobs’, implying that
GlaxoSmithKline could easily move employment and investment out of the UK if the
environment was not favourable to the company. This series of disputes and threats created
an impression of an industry uneasy about its current place in UK society, an industry that feels
government and the public fail to appreciate its contribution to the public’s health, an industry
perhaps unwanted as well as unloved.

1.15 The UK’s second largest pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca, has been reportedly hit by a string of pipeline failures,25 together with anxieties about the safety of both old and newer medicines.26,27AstraZeneca is seeking to secure its long-term strength by cutting costs.28 Powerful investors are publicly questioning the company’s overall strategy for designing and producing new medicines.29 Almost all large research-based pharmaceutical companies are facing similar

This information below was found by googling Pfizer litigation May 8 2014

Update: The trial for this matter is currently scheduled to begin on September 9, 2014.

The main complaint in this Action is that Pfizer and the Individual Defendants, who were allegedly controlling officers and/or directors of Pfizer, made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information from Pfizer’s public reports and documents about the cardiovascular risks associated with Celebrex and Bextra. As a result of these misrepresentations, Plaintiffs allege that the price of Pfizer common stock during the Class Period was artificially inflated. Plaintiffs allege that once the truth about these cardiovascular risks began to emerge, the price of Pfizer common stock declined in value and Class Members suffered losses. Plaintiffs also allege that three former officers and/or directors of Pfizer sold shares of Pfizer stock during the Class Period while in possession of material information about the cardiovascular safety of Celebrex and Bextra that was not disclosed to the public. Plaintiffs are asserting claims under several provisions of the Federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

No comments: