PHARMA CROOKS ???

better check out the outlaw US companies like these also

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-14/astrazeneca-generic-drugmakers-face-class-action-on-nexium-1

 

Is ILA back? Or is this AM4E?

 

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12286443/1/alexion-pharma-skips-out-on-paying-us-taxes-wall-street-says-hurrah.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

 

http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/drug-retailers-sue-pfizer-teva-over-effexor-xr-copycats/2011-12-02?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal

 

Check out those pharma crooks: ENDO!! Nice fines!
The rep who did the most off label selling of Lidoderm patch is still employed there selling in urology now.
The specialty rep who was plucked out of a sales meeting for interview by the FEDS is now working at Teva. Neither was punished and we can assume they are still selling off label. Too sad.

 

2. A key Actos trial revs up in Vegas with demands for a $1B-plus judgment

By Carly Helfand Comment | Forward | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn



Eyes are on Las Vegas today, where the latest trial over Actos' bladder-cancer risks is set to begin. With thousands of other Actos cases pending against Takeda, the case already was destined to be closely watched. And now, one of the plaintiff's lawyers says he's planning to seek the largest verdict in Nevada history.

As the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports, Delores Cipriano, 81, and Bertha Triana, 80, allege that Actos is responsible for their cancer. Cipriano was diagnosed in July 2012 after about 14 months of Actos use; Triana's diagnosis came in May of that same year after taking Actos for about two years. In 2011, the FDA announced that using the med for more than a year could be associated with an increased risk of the disease.

"Due to Takeda Pharmaceutical's conscious decision to keep this information from consumers and their doctors, we now have patients who are left to bear the permanent injury caused by Actos," Cipriano's lawyer, Robert Eglet, said in a statement seen by the newspaper. "That's why we will be asking for over a billion-dollar punitive damage verdict."

His peers, however, haven't been so successful. In two previous cases, judges canned much smaller judgments against Takeda. In the first bladder-cancer trial last April, a jury decided the Japanese pharma didn't do enough to warn the plaintiff about the drug's heightened risks and ordered the company to pay $6.5 million in damages. A judge threw out the case, saying lawyers didn't prove a link between the cancer and Actos use.

 

Pretty much.

Ethics are rules for the weak and gullible. The smart people know that doing bad is a part of business. Most businesses cannot survive based off of altruism and charity. Companies have to gain competitive advantages.

At least most companies use money to influence people. Street gangs would just use violence and coercion.

If you have a problem with dishonesty in corporate America, you should get out and start your own business. You can do all the good that you want to do.

 

How do companies keep these two worthless products on the market? How did they get them there in the first place?

Medical News | Physician's First Watch April 10, 2014 Tamiflu, Relenza Data Show Little Clinical Benefit Against Flu By Joe Elia

The neuraminidase inhibitors oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) have only marginal benefits in the treatment and prevention of influenza, a series of BMJ articles concludes.Investigators reviewed documents submitted to regulatory agencies concerning both drugs.Tamiflu data showed it reduced symptom duration by roughly 17 hours but made no difference in hospital admissions or rates of carefully defined pneumonia. Tamiflu increased nausea and vomiting. As prophylaxis, it greatly reduced symptomatic (but not asymptomatic) cases.The Relenza analysis similarly showed a modest reduction in symptom duration (14 hours) and no effect on pneumonia. As prophylaxis, it acted like Tamiflu and had fewer side effects.Editorialists observe that the analyses show "with greater clarity than ever" that the current system for drug regulation is broken. And one commented that, given these results, "it is difficult to conceive that many patients would actively seek treatment."NEJM Journal Watch Infectious Diseases associate editor Stephen Baum wrote: "Clean out your medicine cabinet: these reviews call into question the drugs' efficacy and side effects, as well as the ways in which data were selectively used to promote them."

Link(s): BMJ article on Tamiflu (Free) BMJ article on Relenza (Free) BMJ editorial on Tamiflu (Free) BMJ editorial on neuraminidase inhibitors (Free) - See more at: http://www.jwatch.org/fw108707/2014/04/10/tamiflu-relenza-data-show-little-clinical-benefit-against?query=pfw#sthash.0a4DqaJS.dpuf

 

How do stockholders allow these top crooks to siphon off billions in excessive, bloated, criminal salaries? From FierceBiopharma:
1. Report: Roche, Novartis among Swiss companies with highest pay gaps

By Arlene Weintraub Comment | Forward | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn


Roche CEO Severin Schwan
The salary differences between top executives and the lowest-paid employees widened at 18 large Swiss companies last year, with pharma giants Roche ($RHHBY) and Novartis ($NVS) ranking high on the list of top offenders. That's the conclusion of a new report from Travail Suisse, an organization of trade unions.

The Travail Suisse report reveals that the top earners at Roche and Novartis are paid at least 200 times more than the lowest-paid employees, Bloomberg reports. That put them in the same league as Swiss giants Nestlé, UBS ($UBS) and Lindt & Spruengli when it comes to pay inequality, the report said.

Executive pay has been a hot topic in Switzerland, exemplified by a 2013 brouhaha over Novartis's plan to hand outgoing chairman Daniel Vasella a $78 million non-compete agreement. Novartis aborted that plan, just in time for a Swiss vote to limit executive pay.

And Swiss voters made it clear they would not tolerate so-called "fat-cat" pay packages in the future. A majority voted to outlaw signing bonuses, golden handshakes, and golden parachutes, and to give shareholders power over annual executive compensation.

The CEOs of Switzerland's two largest pharma companies certainly took home rich pay packages last year. Roche's Severin Schwan earned about $13.4 million, even as the company's massive restructuring claimed 1,000 jobs. And Novartis's Joe Jimenez took home $14.2 million, as the CEO battled against a declining vaccines business, quality-control problems at a U.S. plant, and the loss of patent protection on its blockbuster blood-pressure drug Diovan.


Novartis Chairman Joerg Reinhardt
As Novartis' new chairman Joerg Reinhardt took office, the company promised a new era in executive pay; board member Pierre Landolt hinted at "significant reductions." After its latest shareholder meeting, Novartis said investors had approved reduced compensation for board members in 2015 and that it would look at ways to "better align" board compensation to that of other healthcare companies.

Last November, Swiss voters gave the thumbs-down to a proposal that would have limited CEO pay to no more than 12 times the salary of the lowest-paid employee. Travail Suisse's new report could very well re-open the debate over whether more needs to be done to keep a lid on rich CEO pay packages in Switzerland. "The fat-cat initiative certainly won't solve the problem," the organization said in a statement on its website, according to Bloomberg. "In the first year after its adoption the pay gap of the corporate management widened almost all over the country."

 

Moral Values

It is good to find harmful statistics on this forum, and the big-name-crooks, but I don't see anybody is analyzing the source of these problems; Nobody is paying attention about the background check from the beginning, before being hired/appointed to even a small position.

Most law enforcement hiring made through strict research which should be made in every branch of medicine, after all our lives or on the line.

I know a few people who should not be working for Rocha, or in any medical field. If only Rocha bothered searching for their family background they would be amazed, or "let it go"...? A psychopath must not mingle with our medication!

 

I'm instigating - for sound reason - those that survive pharma and excel within the walls of the ivory tower are shady and lack integrity. I think it's a qualifier when interviewing, thus why would they dig in further?

In pharma you are left with corporate lawyers who write compliance rules requiring Rep sign off that 'they will NOT sell. They will NOT ask for the business" while the metrics and managent will terminate you over not going after the very same thing - all while requiring reps to complete trackers on the number of scripts written for ROI. If a rep cant show it, funds to that physician are cut. It's a a vicious, ignorant cycle that needs to be wiped out, restarted with a new business model.

Long story short, you have to be shady to survive and make it. The shady people at the top know that and follow their own codes of conduct. Don't cha Big Brother?

 

Drug prices plus low reimbursements force cancer docs to sell out

By Tracy Staton Comment | Forward | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

Rising cancer drug prices aren't just alarming to payers. They're squeezing oncologists, too, at a time when doctors are paid less to administer drugs--to the point where they're selling out to hospitals.

Why should drugmakers care whether cancer docs practice under the umbrella of a healthcare system rather than treating patients independently? Because many hospitals pay less for cancer drugs. Plus, still-independent doctors may be swayed more than ever by rebate and discount offers, because their spread on oncology meds has shrunk dramatically.

Why should everyone else care? Because the overall cost of cancer care through hospitals is much higher, as the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics said in a recent report on the oncology market. "Since hospitals incur higher costs and overhead for the delivery of care, their reimbursement levels for the administration of drugs are higher than those for physician offices," IMS Health said in a statement.

And as The New York Times reports, the exact same drugs are reimbursed at up to three times the amount per dose at hospitals than at private oncology practices. For instance, according to the NYT, hospitals can get almost $10,000 per dose of Roche's ($RHHBY) breast cancer drug Perjeta (pertuzumab), while independent oncologists collect somewhere around $4,000.

That's because the overall cost of operating a hospital is higher, including uncompensated care for poor and uninsured patients, the facilities say. But many hospitals pay less for their supplies of drugs. About one-third of hospitals participate in the 340B discount program--designed to encourage care for the poor and uninsured--which requires drugmakers to supply their cancer meds at about half the usual cost. These 340B hospitals "have expanded their oncology presence," IMS Health said.

Other hospitals are able to negotiate better prices because they're buying in bulk. Oncologists get better deals if they buy in quantity, too. But because cancer drugs are increasingly expensive, it's difficult to finance bulk purchasing. Oncologists have to pay up front for their drug supplies, billing their cost plus profit as the drugs are used.

And more expensive therapies are on their way. A new generation of "game-changing" immunotherapies is coming to market, including Bristol-Myers Squibb's ($BMY) Opdivo and Merck's ($MRK) Keytruda, with mid-six-figure price tags.


Drug prices plus low reimbursements force cancer docs to sell out

By Tracy Staton Comment | Forward | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn

Rising cancer drug prices aren't just alarming to payers. They're squeezing oncologists, too, at a time when doctors are paid less to administer drugs--to the point where they're selling out to hospitals.

Why should drugmakers care whether cancer docs practice under the umbrella of a healthcare system rather than treating patients independently? Because many hospitals pay less for cancer drugs. Plus, still-independent doctors may be swayed more than ever by rebate and discount offers, because their spread on oncology meds has shrunk dramatically.

Why should everyone else care? Because the overall cost of cancer care through hospitals is much higher, as the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics said in a recent report on the oncology market. "Since hospitals incur higher costs and overhead for the delivery of care, their reimbursement levels for the administration of drugs are higher than those for physician offices," IMS Health said in a statement.

And as The New York Times reports, the exact same drugs are reimbursed at up to three times the amount per dose at hospitals than at private oncology practices. For instance, according to the NYT, hospitals can get almost $10,000 per dose of Roche's ($RHHBY) breast cancer drug Perjeta (pertuzumab), while independent oncologists collect somewhere around $4,000.

That's because the overall cost of operating a hospital is higher, including uncompensated care for poor and uninsured patients, the facilities say. But many hospitals pay less for their supplies of drugs. About one-third of hospitals participate in the 340B discount program--designed to encourage care for the poor and uninsured--which requires drugmakers to supply their cancer meds at about half the usual cost. These 340B hospitals "have expanded their oncology presence," IMS Health said.

Other hospitals are able to negotiate better prices because they're buying in bulk. Oncologists get better deals if they buy in quantity, too. But because cancer drugs are increasingly expensive, it's difficult to finance bulk purchasing. Oncologists have to pay up front for their drug supplies, billing their cost plus profit as the drugs are used.

And more expensive therapies are on their way. A new generation of "game-changing" immunotherapies is coming to market, including Bristol-Myers Squibb's ($BMY) Opdivo and Merck's ($MRK) Keytruda, with mid-six-figure price tags.

 

This new (?) , scamming company has to be one of the most corrupt, unethical, and disgusting of all times. I am retired from pharma but have never heard of them. Hopefully they will vanish before long with their criminal price gouging of very sick people.

Turing Pharmaceuticals raises price of Daraprim from $US13.50 a tablet to $US750, overnight

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/turing-pharmaceuticals-raises-price-of-daraprim-from-us1350-a-tablet-to-us750-overnight-

 

Our local paper just today had a long article about the above mentioned criminal crooks and also the crooks in pharma generally. It's a sad period for those of us who once worked in a proud and honorable profession.

 

Even Hillary who is one of the most corrupt nasties in our society was talking about the useless, scamming, crook from TURDing pharmaceutical.

 

You are so right. I am embarrassed to let people know I retired from this corrupt industry and years ago I was so proud and friends respected me. Just last week i
I saw headlines that read :'Outrage Over Price Gouging By Pharma Companies Reaches New Highs'. It doesn't seem to bother the top layer of management though as they laugh all the way to the bank never thinking of poor souls dying because they can't afford the high priced drugs.

 

Another new headline in today's news "Outrage Over Price Gouging By Pharma Companies Reaches New Highs". Makes you proud, doesn't it?

 

Martin Shkreli is now known as the most cocky and arrogant POS , scumbag crook in the history of Pharma. Correct?

 

I'm basically ashamed I made a career out of this dirty industry.Just today I'm reading article with headline 'A Price-Gouging, Tax -Dodging Drug Company' about Gilead Sciences and their billions of profits on the hugely overpriced hepatitis C drugs developed with taxpayer support. Hope some of these criminals go to jail.

 

The crooks at Gilead shifted their profits offshore, dodging $10 BILLION in U.S. taxes.