Pfizer gets penalized

14 May
2004

This seems just! Pfizer to Pay $420 Million in Illegal Marketing Case

Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, pleaded guilty yesterday and agreed to pay $430 million to resolve criminal and civil charges that it paid doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug, Neurontin, to patients with ailments that the drug was not federally approved to treat.

viagra
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen

Related posts:

  1. Pfizer and torcetrapib

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

7 Responses to Pfizer gets penalized

Avatar

John Anderson

May 17th, 2004 at 8:45 pm

Oy weh!

Avatar

John Fembup

May 18th, 2004 at 1:09 am

And it seems “just” because . . . ?

Because this medication is no longer available to diabetics ?

Because diabetics can no longer take this medication until the FDA eventually approves it?

Because docs would never have placed their patients at risk, nor compromised their professionalism, had it not been for Pfizer pushing cash at them?

Because the docs who took the payments aren’t included in the decision?

Because Pfizer, which bought Warner Lambert, got nailed for Warner Lambert’s behavior?

Because the FDA which is notoriously slow to approve label uses of drugs dragged its feet on this one, and then decided to extort cash from Pfizer?

Because the lawyers get 50% of the setlement?

Why is this “just”?

Avatar

Carl Lindemann

May 18th, 2004 at 6:21 am

Nice payoff to the whistle blower! Hmm. I wonder if this strategy can help with my overhead!

Avatar

Lil' John

May 18th, 2004 at 8:54 am

Obviously, Mr. Fembup must be a drug rep or work for the industry. No one would surely be so blind to see that it is not the physicians decision nor the industries decision as to how a drug is used. Without proper clinical trials, how do we know this drug wasn’t….isn’t harmful when pushed on the wrong patient.

Lets face it, Pfizer’s hands aren’t exactly clean on giving out bribes and highly influencing physicians prescription decisions. If Mr. Fembup is a physician, maybe he needs help and should check out this website
http://www.nofreelunch.org/

I don’t think the $430 million payoff will put a dent in Pfizer’s funds. Not to mention they can use their $49.15 billion income to influence the FDA to make Neurontin an OTC drug.

Avatar

poormedicalstudent

May 20th, 2004 at 1:32 pm

ugh, that nofreelunch site is a bore. we have students here that constantly push that, as opposed to saying that maybe the responsibility lies with the individual physician to make moral choices in the interests of their patients, not themselves.

regarding the decision, i commented on it a few days back. i believe that both pfizer and the physicians are in the wrong. let’s face it, if physicians weren’t being convinved to offer said drug off-label without studies demonstrating efficacy, this story wouldn’t exist. pfizer started it, but physicians easily could’ve ended it by saying “no thanks”.

Avatar

John Fembup

May 23rd, 2004 at 6:20 pm

“Obviously, Mr. Fembup must be a drug rep or work for the industry. No one would surely be so blind to see that it is not the physicians decision nor the industries decision as to how a drug is used.”

Yeh, right, “obviously” except then you say maybe I’m a physician? Or maybe I’m something else? I guess that’ll cover it, huh, liljohn??

I have nothing to do with the drug industry. Nothing.

But I obviouskly did ask a question, which you just as obviously ignore.

But you do seem to believe that physicians are utterly powerless to resist the influence of Pfizer “bribery”. Thus you accuse physicians of complictiy in the Pfizer “bribert” and moral laxity at the same time, do you not?

Might I add that I would pray NEVER to be defended by the likes of you.

Avatar

Aporkalypse

July 10th, 2004 at 5:03 am

I don’t know enough about it to comment on the bribery issue, but we don’t want this to become an issue of off-label uses no longer being available to physicians. If that were true, we could only use Paxil to treat anxiety d/o instead of other SSRIs. As for Neurontin, the fact it is an excellent, relatively safe second line therapy for peripheral neuropathies when TCAs don’t work. It’s expensive and I prefer TCAs because of cost, but it’s as effective if not more. Neurologists will not abandon their use of it for this.

The FDA probably needs to address off-label use and liberalize their process for adding indications.

Comment Form