Add Comment

Ian, No company is perfect but a firm such as GSK has spent a lot of money helping cure diseases such as HIV, malaria and eliphantitis in Africa for no reward. The standards of safety and quality assurance in the pharma industry are very high. I doubt if any other industry has standards as high. GSK has new medicines on blocks at present for breast cancer and a vaccine to protect women against ovarian cancer. Worthwhile progress? You must remember most research goes in bin. The costs of developing a new medicine are huge. The regulators are very demanding and very risk averse. All chemicals have some side effect. Its a question of balancing risks. The numbers of new medicines licenced each year are dropping. Once a drug goes off-patent, its sales generally drop by 90%. I belive that GSK now posts all research on its drugs on the internet to ensure that the clinical trial evidence is in public domain. I'll declare an interest as someone who worked for GSK and its predessors for over twenty years.

It's the influence this global companies have over our GPs that worries me. I often wonder if the patient is getting the best medication for the ailment/illness. They're wonderful at marketing because they have the investment. It's a double edged sword.

Is Strathturret so naive as to really believe what he writes? Even GSK does not claim to 'post all research on its drugs on the internet', so please provide your evidence Strathturret Big Pharma is notorious for concealing adverse results from drug trials. Not only but perhaps most of all GSK, currently negotiating settlement of tens of thousands of legal claims in the U.S.A. and elsewhere Furthermore pharmaceutical industry accounting practices are at best questionable since serendipitous play in laboratories is recorded as 'research' and/or 'product development' expense. Such costs should properly be regarded as investor liability, not borne by taxpayers I have lobbied the 7 Scots MEPs to press the European Pharmacovigilance Committee in support of the M.H.R.A.'s letter calling for change in current E.U. Law which is a barrier to UK regulation of the pharmaceutical industry People in England, Ireland, Wales, please ask your own MEPs to liaise with the Scots and help bring Big Pharma under adequate control dixie dean (Prof. Em.) zenminky@clara.co.uk

Nationalise the drugs industry.

OK: Consider the alternatives: The drug companies take their ball on go home. They say ”we’ve made enough, that’s it, time for a rest”. We have no new drugs – good ones or bad ones – and we are left to the diseases we encounter. Would we be happy – I doubt it. There is no doubt that drug companies profiteer; unfortunately, if there is a price to innovation it is profit, whether we like it or not. It is the dream of being rich, not being that drives people to spend huge amounts bringing altruistic, which drives people to innovate. Sorry, but it is. And for all the bad of the industry, do most of us not live longer, healthier lives nowadays? Does medical science – which the drug companies are the greatest funders of, have no need to be thanked. Nationalising the drug companies –and although I agree with much of what you say usually Donald – would not work. That kind of innovation would only be driven by the greedy. I think the amount hey make is wrong to, but the way our regulatory industry works, that’s how it works – it’s not good, but it’s the least bad option. Drug companies work in high stakes poker, it cost up to one billion US dollars brining a new drug to market – if it make sit that far – and they need to recoup that. If how they make their return on investment seems questionable, is there no onus on us to lower the fiscal hurdles of bringing that drug to market? As it stands, we want to have all the benefit and none of risk – we don’t even offer encouragement or guidance as to what our priority disease areas are. Manufacturers have to guess what will be important, innovate, develop, test for safety, work out dosage and prove all of this to the regulatory bodies before they are given a licence to market. Then they have to negotiate a price on a country by country basis. Only then do they start to sell. One can empathise if not agree with their need to turn a substantial profit – next time round you might not make it to market. When the stake in the next round is another US €1 billion, you better have something in the bank. Big pharma is not the new tobacco industry, as they often seem portrayed. We have created this situation, and we create a rod for our own backs. We feign indifference, yet we look to them to innovate in a highly regulated climate; we make the hurdles very high and we are not consistent in what we want and what we approve. If I worked in an environment like that, I might try a bit of profiteering, as it might be the only chance I get. Before anyone asks, I don’t work for a drug company, but I have worked in healthcare for more than 20 years. I know a lot of what they do is questionable, but there is a lot that policymakers could do to reduce the risk and reduce the cost and at the same time reduce the need to profiteer. And don’t tell me you really want them to stop…

Sorry, this makes better sense! OK; Consider the alternatives: The drug companies take their ball on go home. They say ”we’ve made enough, that’s it, time for a rest”. We have no new drugs – good ones or bad ones – and we are left to the diseases we encounter. Would we be happy – I doubt it. There is no doubt that drug companies profiteer; unfortunately, if there is a price to innovation it is profit, whether we like it or not. It is the dream of being rich, not being altruistic that drives people to innovate and to spend huge amounts bringing, which drives people. Sorry, but it is. And for all the bad of the industry, do most of us not live longer, healthier lives nowadays? Does medical science – which the drug companies are the greatest funders of, have no need to be thanked. Nationalising the drug companies –and although I agree with much of what you say usually Donald – would not work. That kind of innovation would only be driven by the greedy. I think the amount hey make is wrong to, but the way our regulatory industry works, that’s how it works – it’s not good, but it’s the least bad option. Drug companies work in high stakes poker, it cost up to one billion US dollars brining a new drug to market – if it make sit that far – and they need to recoup that. If how they make their return on investment seems questionable, is there no onus on us to lower the fiscal hurdles of bringing that drug to market? As it stands, we want to have all the benefit and none of risk – we don’t even offer encouragement or guidance as to what our priority disease areas are. Manufacturers have to guess what will be important, innovate, develop, test for safety, work out dosage and prove all of this to the regulatory bodies before they are given a licence to market. Then they have to negotiate a price on a country by country basis. Only then do they start to sell. One can empathise if not agree with their need to turn a substantial profit – next time round you might not make it to market. When the stake in the next round is another US €1 billion, you better have something in the bank. Big pharma is not the new tobacco industry, as they often seem portrayed. We have created this situation, and we create a rod for our own backs. We feign indifference, yet we look to them to innovate in a highly regulated climate; we make the hurdles very high and we are not consistent in what we want and what we approve. If I worked in an environment like that, I might try a bit of profiteering, as it might be the only chance I get. Before anyone asks, I don’t work for a drug company, but I have worked in healthcare for more than 20 years. I know a lot of what they do is questionable, but there is a lot that policymakers could do to reduce the risk and reduce the cost and at the same time reduce the need to profiteer. And don’t tell me you really want them to stop…

London Evening Standard 09/05/2007 "MMR judge faces probe over brother's link to vaccine firm "The Londoner's Diary, Evening Standard, May 9 2007. "You might have thought that a judge presented with a case regarding MMR vaccines and the link to autism would declare that his brother was a director of MMR vaccine manufacturer Glaxo SmithKline Beecham. But you would be wrong. "Sir Nigel Davis was the judge who, three years ago, rejected an appeal by MMR vaccine litigants against the decision not to award funding for their legal campaign. But he failed to mention his interests in the subject. "Now, complaints against him are being filed to the Office for Judicial Complaints, which investigates allegations of any questionable conduct by judges, coroners and magistrates. "Davis's brother, Sir Crispin Davis, was appointed a non-executive director of drugs multinational Glaxo Smith Kline in 2003, a year before the appeal came to court. Asked why Sir Nigel did not declare this, his spokesman said: "The possibility of any interest arising from his brother's position did not occur to him." "But Sir Crispin's potential links with MMR vaccines goes back longer than that, as since 1999 he had been CEO of Reed Elsevier, the publishing company which owns The Lancet magazine. "Although The Lancet had originally published research into the links between autism and MMR by Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998, by 2004 the magazine regretted ever having done so. The Lancet had announced its change of heart only the week before Sir Nigel was due to make his decision on the MMR litigants' appeal, sparking a sudden backlash against the theory in the media, and prompting the Prime Minister to say "There is absolutely no evidence to support this link between MMRand autism". "The quashing of the MMR litigants case would have a huge relief to the government, who could have faced massive pay outs had they successfully sued the drugs companies over the effects of MMR. "Sir Crispin Davis was knighted by Blair's government in June 2004, only four months after the Lancet article was published (sic)." http://www.theonecli ckgroup.co.uk/docume nts/vaccines/media/M MR%20Judge%20and%20% 20Glaxo%20.pdf

[quote][bold]Donald Anderson[/bold] wrote: Nationalise the drugs industry.[/quote] To be financed by income from Northern Rock?

Bearing mind Ian Bell's contention that the pharmaceutical industry save lives, it is worth looking at at former BMJ editor Richard Smith's recent warning: 'Money can't buy me life' http://commentisfree .guardian.co.uk/rich ard_smith/2008/01/mo ney_cant_buy_me_life .html The issue of wheher there is a net public benefit from the pharma is a proposition that is never tested. Instead they are allowed to set the public health agenda, which is both expensive and dangerous. On top of that there is the damning report the Common's Health Committee of 2005 on the Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry: http://www.lindallia nce.org/pdfs/HofCHea lthCommittee.pdf

We really have to inject some realism into the state of the pharmaceutical industry. The House of Commons Health Committee report recognised many of the problems - and recent media coverage has revealed much of what many have known for years. The controls are just not there. As consumers, we need to know how it's possible for an industry with such potential to cause havoc to our health to be left largely to its own devices. Under current conditions, it is not possible for any government agency to independently verify pharmaceutical research - and they are allowed to bury research data that would reflect negatively on their products. When even the Royal College of Psychiatry is calling for the publication of all research data, we know that the situation is out of hand. Science is not averse to greed, self-interest or corruption, as we can see from this example:- http://www.theecolog ist.org/pdf/1998Rich ardDoll_081206.pdf -   Sir Richard Doll: A Questionable Pillar of the Cancer Establishment  Sir Richard Doll died in July 2005. Over a year later, evidence came to light that he was in the pay of major chemical companies when he gave the green light to their products. Eight years earlier, the Ecologist was threatened with legal action for running this story...   Date:01/03/1998     Author:Martin Walker

Wow, thanks a lot for sharing this!!!!! A real eye opener...

Strathturret of Montrose wrote: [italic]"No company is perfect but a firm such as GSK has spent a lot of money helping cure diseases such as HIV, malaria and eliphantitis in Africa for no reward."[/italic] No reward? What about sales? [italic]"I belive that GSK now posts all research on its drugs on the internet to ensure that the clinical trial evidence is in public domain."[/italic] Classic quote. GSK were forced to do this as part of an out of court settlement (http://www.pubmedce ntral.nih.gov/articl erender.fcgi?artid=5 16685) I wonder if Strathturret of Montrose has ever had to endure adverse side-effects after taking Seroxat? If GSK were a walking entity they would have been sentenced to death years ago with the crimes they have committed. Bob Fiddaman SEROXAT SUFFERERS BLOG http://fiddaman.blog spot.com

GSK has supplied drugs free or at cost price to alleviate the three diseases I quoted. Don't knock the pharma industry too much its one of the few successful manufacturing industries left in UK. The man who suggest nationising the pharma industry is daft. Give me an example of a successful nationised pharma company? All drugs have side effects; even aspirin. Taking any medecine is a balance. Our current life expectancy is largely down to the efforts of the pharma industry. Yes drug companies are very profitable. Manufacturing costs are a fraction of sale prices. However examine the benefits provided. If you have a stomach ulcer would you rather have the operation that was the only option prior to Cimetidine. And how much did that operation cost?

[quote][bold]Strathturret[/bold] wrote: Ian, No company is perfect but a firm such as GSK has spent a lot of money helping cure diseases such as HIV, malaria and eliphantitis in Africa for no reward. The standards of safety and quality assurance in the pharma industry are very high. I doubt if any other industry has standards as high. GSK has new medicines on blocks at present for breast cancer and a vaccine to protect women against ovarian cancer. Worthwhile progress? You must remember most research goes in bin. The costs of developing a new medicine are huge. The regulators are very demanding and very risk averse. All chemicals have some side effect. Its a question of balancing risks. The numbers of new medicines licenced each year are dropping. Once a drug goes off-patent, its sales generally drop by 90%. I belive that GSK now posts all research on its drugs on the internet to ensure that the clinical trial evidence is in public domain. I'll declare an interest as someone who worked for GSK and its predessors for over twenty years.[/quote] So, when they succeed they shhould pocket the profits and when they are caught out using their financial muscle to lie and mislead they are to be excused. Hmm, tell that to the people who have lost children to suicide thanks to your former company's behaviour.

You have to look at positives as well as negatives BT. How many people have much better lives because of Ventolin, Beclomethasone, Fluticasone (asthma treatments). How many lives saved because of penicillins and cephalosporin antibiotics? People commit suicide all the time. Do we always know the reasons? I don't think you can exclusively blame a pharma company.

Where is it writen that the drug companies should give away their medications? If the African nations' rulers weren't such corrupt thieves they could afford to pay a fair price for life-saving treatments. As it stands, the exorbitant amounts extorted from US citizens by these companies allow them to subsidize the citizens of thieving nations.

I'm amazed that there are still many people who think pharmacutical drugs cure anything. If all the current drugs were to disappear, the death rate would probably fall 50% like it does during doctors strikes. From my experience,the purpose of the pharmacutical industry is to make people sick, addict them and steal their money. "Murdercare" is what it should be called.

I don't know whether Strathturret of Montrose is the same Strathturret who discloses in the Daily Telegraph that he works in the pharmaceutical industry: http://my.telegraph. co.uk/Strathturret/ Montrose is, of course, the home of a division of GlaxoSmithKline: http://www.thelocalw eb.net/index/MSU/tlw _526717.htm I would not like to get into claiming that all pharmaceutical products are useless, but the claim that the pharma is the prime source of any improved health or longevity is pure fantasy. Before you consider the net contribution of the pharma, you have to consider improved living conditions, sanitation, nutrition.

John Stone great detective work. See my post at 11.54pm on Saturday where I declared my interest. I think anyone who suggests the pharma industry is useless should take a walk through a cemetary. Look at the number of children killed by infections in Victorian Britain. Life expectation at birth in UK was 50 in 1900.

Strathturret "John Stone great detective work. See my post at 11.54pm on Saturday where I declared my interest." Apologies for missing your disclosure. "I think anyone who suggests the pharma industry is useless should take a walk through a cemetary. Look at the number of children killed by infections in Victorian Britain. Life expectation at birth in UK was 50 in 1900." Yes, but look how much better it was by the middle of the last century, without most of the pharma junk that we have today. Most of the diseases which were deadly in childhood at beginning of the century had become marginal. Penicillin, was, of course, an important advance although much misused. If you were going to weigh your pharmaceuticals, against good nutrition, clean water, clean air and warm houses, what would you come up with?

Well of course in 1950s we did not have Aids! Now while there is not a cure there are drugs that can give a decent life to those afflicted. Asthma drugs have come in since 60s many produced by much criticised GSK. Then we have ulcer drugs to replace a nasty operation. We now have a vacine to prevent cervical cancer. So lots of good stuff to go along with a good water supply and good food. I agree we have lots of drugs for questionable conditions; GSK's migrane drug sumatriptan was thought to be a blockbuster; it bombed as nobody was prepared to pay for it. The viagra class are in my view questionable. There is broad spectrum but the good is very good and poor products fail.

Strathturret I agree about the ulcer drugs. Unfortunately, AIDS can be chalked up against the pharma, and Maurice Hilleman messing around with monkeys in Merck's laboratories (on his own account): http://ahrp.blogspot .com/2007/09/comment s-re-merck-contamina ted-vaccines.html The vastly increased rates of asthma despite better air are a product of vaccine additives: ""The problem with most adjuvants is that they can cause allergies," said Simes. "Ours might not be as potent as others, but it is safer."" http://www.marketwat ch.com/News/Story/St ory.aspx?dist=newsfi nder&siteid=google&g uid=%7BE74AA951-7FB4 -4457-92CB-ECFC53C6B D32%7D&keyword= The rise in allergic conditions matches the icrease in the vaccine schedule nicely. Is this conjecture? Well certain poweful interests will certainly want to keep it that way. http://www.generatio nrescue.org/pdf/0802 12.pdf HPV is a disaster. No one can possibly say whether it is going to work and there already deaths: http://www.nvic.org/ Diseases/HPV/HPVHOME .htm

Sorry I believe Diana was killed because the driver was drunk and she was not wearing a seatbelt.

Sorry, Strathturret, what is your point? I produce well-documented footage of Merck's top vaccine scientist saying he created AIDS in his laboratory. I suppose he could have made it all up to entertain his psychophantic audience, but I certain didn't. Bad products don't just bomb: what about Avandia, what about Seroxat, what about the Urabe version of MMR, to name three GSK specials? They just leave a trail of destruction which you then use every political and legal trick to defend. Okay, you have given your life to this industry, so you will try and forgive, forget and ignore much. It is quite possible that you individually have achieved some good, but there are many, many skeletons in the cupboard.

I don't think case against Avandia is in any way proven. There is a tiny increased risk amongst a group of people who are already susceptable to heart problems. All drugs are highly tested and investigated before they are launched. Bodies like FDA are pretty thorough and very risk averse. Aspirin would probably not get authorised today if it was a new product. You sound like a conspiracy theory merchant to me. These blogs are full of them. They usually post loads of links and include no argument. Why is someone in N London so interested in Sunday Herald comment piece about pharma industry?

Aids from BBC website. 'Dual source' caused Aids-like virus By Dr David Whitehouse BBC News Online science editor A genetic study of SIV - the Aids-like virus that infects monkeys - suggests that HIV - the virus that causes Aids in humans - came about through the combination of two viruses in chimpanzees. Chimps may harbour more dangerous viruses Chimps could have been infected by other SIV-type viruses when they preyed on monkeys. The study confirms what has been established about the origin of Aids: it emerged from the forests of western Africa some time in the last century. Humans caught it from chimpanzees when they ate them as food, or became exposed to their blood in rituals.

The House of Commons Health Committee are apparently conspiracy theorists too: http://www.lindallia nce.org/pdfs/HofCHea lthCommittee.pdf The links are there to show that I am not talking out of my hat, and the sources are credible. FDA: http://ahrp.blogspot .com/2007/03/latest- report-blasts-fda-bu ngling-drug.html http://www.ahrp.org/ cms/content/view/86/ 80/ Strathturret, this is cyberspace.

Oh well, if it is the BBC it must be true. I am not sure that genetic testing can establish whether the event occured in West Africa or Pennsylvania. Anyhow, the guy in Pennsylvania said he did it, and he had the means. The BBC report does not mention dirty needles as a means of transmission.

The pharmaceutical industry is in business for one purpose only - to make money. Apart from anti-biotics, discovered by accident, there isn't a single drug that actually cures any diseases. They are designed to alleviate/mask symptoms only, this ensures continual demand for 'improved' drugs. If they actually cured us the pharmaceutical industry would collapse. Most 'new' drugs are copies of or similar to existing drugs as companies compete for a share of this lucrative market. Drugs side effects often cause other illnesses requiring more drugs and so this profitable cycle continues. Vice pesident of major drug company admits that majority of drugs do not work in most people, JAMA(15.4.98) reported that presription drugs are the 4th major cause of death, and a recent report revealed that drug deaths have increased 155% in a decade in UK. The biggest impact on health in the 20th century was improved living conditions - not drugs. In fact despite all the resources, hi-tech equimpment and countless new drugs in the past 50 years, we have more sickness and disease today than at any time in history, new diseases unheard of before and drug related diseases have reached epidemic proportions!!

Gemma Nichols another conspiracy theorist. It was Prince Philip in the tunnel with the Fiat Uno I suppose! John Stone, there is no backing for your conspiracy theories regarding AIDS/HIV in this 124 page House of Commons report. I have copied the opening sentence of the HoC report summary which rather shoots down your arguments and Ms Nichols. “Medicines contribute enormously to the health of the nation. The discovery, development and effective use of drugs have improved many people’s quality of life, reduced the need for surgical intervention and the length of time spent in hospital and saved many lives.” That’s rather the point I was making to you and others. And who exactly are the Alliance for Human Research Protection?? A pressure group with a view that everything that the pharma industry does is bad. But not so influential that they gave evidence to the HoC enquiry! Well you’re entitled to your view. As I said every drug has side effects. Taking medicine is a balance. If I get ill, I’ll trust my GP and the products of UK/USA/Swiss big pharma thanks very much. No individual or organisation is perfect and we can all do better. You can visit your quack with his leaches. As a final thought, I would suspect that AfHRP would have tried to prevent Bayer selling aspirin.

So Strathturret, "if you got ill" you'd happily take Seroxat for a number of years, would you? Anyway, perhaps we should move this discussion on a little and talk about drug marketing, suppressed clinical trials, ghostwriting and buying Key Opinion Leaders to talk up dodgy drugs. How about we start with Seroxat studies 329 and 377 and Dr Keller?

Strathturret You seem a bit confused. Nowhere did I cite the Commons report in relation to the AIDS issue, only in regard to pharma practices, certainly exemplified by Seroxat. You quote the opening sentence of the report - it is inevitable that they should make such a gesture in the name of sounding balanced - but in fact the report charts malpractice on a truly Byzantine scale. If you think what happens is alright it speaks volumes. The issue of AHRP's status is irrelelvant. The question is whether their reports are adequately documented, authenticated etc. There is a real danger of this world of officially sanctioned truths you inhabit requiring everyone leaves their critical faculties behind to believe what they are told.

John Stone You are obviously a single issue obsessive. I'm afraid nobody else is listening to our conversation . I'm not going to change your mind and I'm not into major conspiracy theories. Your aids story is just silly and the HoC report is well balanced and criticises the pharma industry, medical profession and the MHRA, while acknowledging the the UK pharma industry is "world class". The opening sentence in the HoC report is worth repeating again as all report writers will put the key point first in any summary. “Medicines contribute enormously to the health of the nation. The discovery, development and effective use of drugs have improved many people’s quality of life, reduced the need for surgical intervention and the length of time spent in hospital and saved many lives.” I rest my case.

Please watch http://video.google. ca/videoplay?docid=- 1546322203061765598 and http://video.google. ca/videoplay?docid=3 983706668483511310 to get a different view of what causes aids. Poor nutrition and compromised immune systems are more to blame than sharing needles.

Strathturret Apart from the relentless personal abuse against me, which is fairly cowardly coming from someone not using their own name, your idea that the substance of the HoC report is reflected in the first sentence is not sustainable. In fact, almost none of the report is about how the pharmaceutical industry has improved or extended people's lives. It is about how the pharma has extended its power in ruthless, inappropriate and unaccountable ways. People can read it for themselves (if indeed anyone is still following) rather than take your word or mine for it. They may do better to type the title 'The influence of the pharmaceutical industry' into google rather that try and reconstruct the URL above. I am interested in a great many issues, but I am very interested in this one. Should I not be?

Strathturret Incidentally, are you suggesting that the video-tape of Maurice Hilleman is a forgery? Or was he just pulling everyone's leg? The explanation seems otherwise to be of a similar sort to BBC hypothesis, but it also seems plausible that artificial conditions might have been a catalyst for something that was rather unlikely to happen in nature.

Your a tad sensitive John Stone. Perhaps you are not used to having your wild allegations and conspiracy theories challenged. Criticism of an industry is easy. What's your solution?

No, I am not particularly sensitive, Strathturret. I am just pointing out how you conduct yourself. My solution. Properly independent regulation. Loosen the ties between government and the industry. No revolving doors. No free lunches. Get the pharma out of education of doctors. A legal services commision which is prepared to test the public interest against the powerful. All this is, of course, easier said than done. but there is a false economy. The government thinks the pharmaceutical companies are helping to pay for medicine. But we have to pay for the pharmaceutical companies, who have set the agenda to suit their interests.

No conspiracy theories here Strath - just embarrassing questions. I'll ask again, as you seemed to have missed my comment... "if you got ill" you'd happily take Seroxat for a number of years, would you? Anyway, perhaps we should move this discussion on a little and talk about drug marketing, suppressed clinical trials, ghostwriting and buying Key Opinion Leaders to talk up dodgy drugs. How about we start with Seroxat studies 329 and 377 and Dr Keller? The problem with the drugs industry is that the salesmen have taken over. If the drugs worked and were so good then no one would have to sell them, they would sell themselves.

If I was ill, I’d go to my GP. As I’m a chemist, I’d allow my GP to decide the best course of action as he is the professional in this area not me. I may know nothing having only worked in the pharma industry for over 23 years but my impression has always been of an industry populated by people of integrity who are trying hard to make good products that benefit mankind. And of course the industry has to make a profit. I can see no advantage whatsoever in a company knowingly marketing a ‘dodgy’ product. Major pharma companies have hundreds of potential products under development; almost all fall by the wayside. Given the huge negative publicity of selling a poor product, not to mention the potential of litigation why take the risk? All my experience in the industry is of a ‘low risk’ culture. At every step patient safety and quality is the watchword. This is the very ethos of the company that I know best. Do pharma companies always get it right? Of course not. As to regulation, I would have thought that the pharma industry is one one of the most regulated around. Perhaps some of the attention related to Seroxat should be directed at the medical profession not GSK. The drug was never licensed for use by under 18s. Doctors prescribed it for children as is their right but they were using their clinical judgement. If they had taken a safety first approach they would have not used it as it was not licensed for this class of patient. I’m not able to say whether these doctors took the correct course of action or not as I do not have any of the facts. The FDA is certainly advising against this course of action now. I would suggest that it is hardly surprising if some people who are depressed kill themselves, whatever medication they are on. People have been committing suicide long before there was a pharma industry. Do you hold the alcohol industry responsible for suicides too? Every drug has side effects even OTC remedies such as paracetamol and aspirin. You have to balance the good against the bad. That’s the purpose of the clinical trials and the regulatory bodies. Only good products make it through this tortuous process. I’ll repeat the opening sentence of the House of Commons inquiry into the Pharmaceutical industry, which encapsulates my views rather well: “Medicines contribute enormously to the health of the nation. The discovery, development and effective use of drugs have improved many people’s quality of life, reduced the need for surgical intervention and the length of time spent in hospital and saved many lives.”

I ask strathturret,why do the Big Pharma not bring out cures.Answer they are in business for profit. Dr Ornish in California has been shown in a tv documentary to reverse heart disease with diet,supplements and exercise.Dr Rath in Europe is doing the same. Dr Bush in Hull has proved with photos of the back of the eyes over a 3 yr study to reverse arterial plaque with 500mg Vit C daily. This is the reason the Pharma Industry is trying to get rid of alternative medicine. It cures and is natural,they cannot charge £1000 per tablet.I would suggest you visit www.profit-over-life .org and find the truth

They are in business for profit. You'll be telling me next that the Pope's a catholic and bears defecate in woods. There are plenty of drugs/vaccines that cure/prevent illness. Illnesses like typhoid, diptheria, measles, scarlet fever, syphilis, polio are almost unknown in developed world. Sorry what's relevance of Nuremburg and IG trials??

"Vaccine companies investigated for nanslaughter Reuter 1 February 2008 "A formal investigation has been launched by French authorities against two managers from drug companies GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur. A second investigation for manslaughter has also been opened against Sanofi Pasteur MSD. "The investigations are in response to allegations that the companies failed to fully disclose side effects from an anti-hepatitis B drug used between 1994 and 1998. "During this time, close to two-thirds of the French population, and almost all newborn babies, received a hepatitis B vaccine. The vaccination campaign was halted after concerns rose over the shot’s side effects. "Thirty plaintiffs, including the families of five people who died after the vaccination, have launched a civil action in the case against the drug companies."

Cervical cancer: a personal perspective On International Women’s Day we can celebrate the fact that the outlook for preventing one of the world’s top female cancer killers is better than it has ever been. Cervical cancer kills one woman in the world every two minutes.1 The good news is that there is now a way to stop cervical cancer before it starts – with vaccination against the challenging virus which causes the cancer, the human papillomavirus. The global impact of cervical cancer Worldwide cervical cancer affects over 1.4 million women, is the second most common cancer in women aged 15-45 and the third leading cause of cancer death among women, after breast and lung cancer.1 Most of the deaths occur in the developing world. In women who do not undergo regular screening, cervical cancer can be a silent killer as it can take many years to develop and women may not experience symptoms for a long time.2 By the time symptoms appear the disease is often in an advanced stage.2 Receiving the news of my abnormal pap smear was shocking and scary As well as the high death toll associated with cervical cancer, women who survive it –often in the prime of their lives – may be left with the legacy of infertility when radical surgery is needed to remove the cancerous tissue. Being diagnosed with cervical cancer was “a living nightmare” for 40-year-old Sabine de Vos who survived this ordeal twice but had to undergo the gruelling experience of three operations, including a hysterectomy, and a three-month course of intensive radiotherapy and chemotherapy to ensure she was totally cancer-free. “Of course I’m thankful to be alive but the plans my new partner and I had to have another child have had to be abandoned” says Sabine. “I consider myself very lucky that I had my two sons before the disease struck”. The virus behind cervical cancer Cervical cancer is caused by a virus called human papillomavirus (HPV) which is caught through sexual activity.3 Unfortunately condoms do not fully protect women from HPV infection since the spread of the virus does not depend on full intercourse only but may also occur simply through skin-to-skin contact in the genital area.4,5 There are about 100 known types of HPV but only about 15 can cause cervical cancer.6 Together four cancer-causing virus types (16, 18, 45 and 31) are the most common, accounting for more than 80 percent of all cervical cancer cases worldwide.6 HPV 16, 18 and 45 are particularly concerning since these three are associated with nearly 90 per cent of cases of adenocarcinoma, a particularly aggressive form of cervical cancer.7 Image of the human papillomavirus (HPV), the virus that causes cervical cancer.HPV is very common: it is estimated that up to 80 per cent of women will acquire an HPV infection in their lifetime and up to 50 per cent of these will be with a cancer-causing virus type.8,9 Luckily most infections resolve spontaneously but when the infection persists the risk of developing cervical cancer rises sharply.10 A persistent infection with a cancer-causing virus type may cause the development of abnormal and pre-cancerous cervical cell changes which over time can develop into cancer.10 HPV is a challenging virus because the natural immune response, following infection with a cancer-causing virus type, may not be strong enough to protect against subsequent infection.11,12,13 What is more, as immune function gets weaker with age, infections are more likely to persist and hence progress to cancer as a woman gets older.13 Screening for cervical cancer The strongest weapon in the fight against cervical cancer is prevention. Where it is available, regular screening using smear testing provides an early warning system, detecting evidence of abnormal or pre-cancerous cells and allowing in some instances to remove the diseased tissue. While screening helps detect abnormalities, around 20 percent of abnormal cases remain undetected.14 It is also significant that receiving an abnormal smear test result can be a traumatic and unsettling experience for women, as can the surgical procedures used to eliminate the affected cells. "Receiving the news of my abnormal pap smear was shocking and scary," says 22-year-old Alexandra "AJ" Stewart who underwent laser surgery to have her abnormal cells removed. "It was a terrifying experience - I completely shut down and couldn't deal with the possibility of having cancer at my age." Vaccination against cervical cancer I’m very pleased that I got the chance to participate in a cervical cancer vaccine clinical trial The good news is that there is now a way to stop cervical cancer before it starts – with vaccination against the human papillomavirus. It has been estimated that effective vaccination alongside regular screening, could reduce the risk of developing cervical cancer by 94 percent, compared to no intervention.15 Because HPV is no ordinary virus and poses particular challenges by managing to hide from the natural immune system, it is important to ensure that the immune response induced by vaccination is consistently strong and long-lasting that it protects against the most common and aggressive cancer-causing virus types. To stop infections with cancer-causing human papillomavirus types from occurring, vaccination before a first sexual encounter is recommended, but, since a woman can come across the virus at any point in her life, nearly all women could benefit from vaccination.16 "I’m very pleased that I got the chance to participate in a cervical cancer vaccine clinical trial" says 24-year-old Vanessa Pinto. "I feel I was given a great opportunity to be involved in bringing this cervical cancer vaccine to women around the world, and I look forward to vaccinating my daughter in the future, so she can be protected from this terrible disease." Although she may have received the vaccine in the trial, Vanessa – like all sexually active women – has been advised to continue having regular smear tests since rarer HPV types could still cause the disease. However we now have the means to tackle most of cervical cancer and significantly reduce the alarming statistics associated with the disease. The essence of International Women's Day is women worldwide choosing to be responsible, independent and in control of their lives. Today they have the opportunity to safeguard their future by never missing a smear appointment and by talking to their doctor about vaccination – it could save your life. References 1. Ferlay J, Bray P, Pisani P, et al. GLOBOCAN 2002: Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 5, version 2.0. IARCPress, Lyon, 2004. Available at: http://www-dep.iarc. fr. Accessed September 20, 2005 2. Canavan TP, Doshi NR. Cervical cancer. Am Fam Physician March 2000; 61(5): 1369-76. 3. Baseman JG, Koutsky LA. The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infections J Clin Virol 2005; 32 Suppl 1; S16-24 4. Schiffman M, Kjaer SK. Natural history of anogenital human papillomavirus infection and neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2003; 31: 14-19 5. Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q et al. Condom use and the risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 2006 June 22; 354(25):2645-54. 6. Muñoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 518-527 7. Muñoz N, Bosch FX, Castellasague X. Against which human papillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen ? The international perspective. Int J Cancer 111; 278-285 (2004) 8. Bosch FX, de Sanjose S. Chapter 1 : Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer – burden and assessment of causality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2003; 3-13 9. Brown DR, Shew ML, Qadadri B, Neptune N, Vargas M, Tu W, Juliar BE, Breen TE, Fortenberry JD. A longitudinal study of genital human papillomavirus infection in a cohort of closely followed adolescent women. J Infect Dis 2005; 191: 182-192 10. Kiviat NB, Koutsky LA. Specific human papillomavirus types as the causal agents of most cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: implications for current views and treatment. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1993; 85(12): 934-5. 11. Stanley M. Immune responses to human papillomavirus. Vaccine 2006, Vol24S1/16-22 12. Viscidi et al. Seroactivity to human papillomavirus (HPV) typwes 16,18 or 31 and risk of subsequent HPV infection: results from a population-based study in Costa Rica. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 2004; 13: 324-327 13. Mayrand M, Coutlée F, Hankins C, Lapointe N, Forest P, De Ladurantaye M, et al. Detection of Human Papillomavirus Type 16 DNA in Consecutive Genital Samples Does Not Always Represent Persistent Infection as Determined by Molecular Variant Analysis. J Clin Microbiol September 2000: 3388–3393 14. Schiller JT, Davies P. Delivering on the promise: HPV vaccines and cervical cancer. Nat Rev Microbiol, 2004; 2: 343-347 15. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, Franco E. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004b; 96: 604-615. 13. 16. Skinner R et al. Presented at EUROGIN 2007 Back to top Vaccines: investing for life Find out more about the search for new vaccines GSK features feed What are RSS feeds? Page options Printer-friendly version Send this page to a friend Quick links A new era in cervical cancer prevention New treatments for cancer Vaccines at GSK Supporting cancer research GSK and cervical cancer prevention continuing a commitment to the developing world (PDF 66Kb)