Johnson & Johnson, pays $2.2B to get off the hook

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
23,536
Reaction score
33,347
You are right, it's unrelated.

Unrelated, yet not plausible? Scientifically a non-issue?

You, sir, are an ideological extremist.:cheers: And this is just one more example. Not critical or even skeptical in the least in some distinct aspects or possibilities, yet 100% confident in your contempt when it comes to intent and innuendo on the other hand. :laugh2:


Holding Corporations Accountable
- And I thought only Pfizer made Viagra. :naughty:
 

truckermde

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
18,939
Reaction score
25,689
that's right.

Johnson & Johnson: the Family Company.



you KNOW anyone who markets themselves that way is full of SH!T
 

lǎo​wài

It's All About the Maos
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
6,202
Reaction score
14,190
The article states that the drug was FDA approved in 1994.

Approved for one specific purpose

Though it sounds like the intended use and related marketing were recently altered to encompass a broader array of maladies that it is meant to treat.

I'm assuming, based on what the article is presenting, that any such change in the intended use or intended patients would require a re-examining/re-approval by the FDA?

No. Your assumption is wrong. Approved drugs are used for off label (Read: not used for the original thing they were intended for; see: Rogain) purposes all the time

Sounds like someone F'd up.

Patients should always review their meds thoroughly, as they ultimately require your consent for treatment. Nobody can force you to take anything, but the information has to be accurate to make an informed decision.

Yes, of course. The responsibility of what drugs you take should be the responsibility of the one whom is taking said drug. When the doctors are nothing more than tools of the pharma industry, pushing drugs not developed or intended to treat your ailment, the responsibility for you being dead should fall on you. You should have done you due diligence. The money you're paying to a medical professional means nothing.

I think it's safe and realistic to assume that EVERY drug will cause some sort of side effect. Again, choose wisely.

:facepalm:
 

Markie A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
2,074
How about some "Drug Money" for the Bipartisan "DC Money Train". How many does that kill per year?


Global banking giant HSBC will pay $1.92 billion in a record settlement with U.S. regulators to resolve money-laundering allegations.

In Mexico, HSBC became the preferred bank for drug cartels and money launderers, according to the Justice Department. The government said the bank didn't raise red flags even when billions of dollars in transactions took place in cash, the typical mode of operation for drug dealers.

Between 2006 and 2009, according to DOJ, HSBC failed to monitor $670 billion in wire transfers and $9.4 billion in cash transactions from its Mexico bank operations.

Because of these failures, at least $881 million in drug trafficking money -- including those of the Sinaloa Cartel of Mexico and the Norte del Valle Cartel of Colombia -- were laundered through HSBC, according to Justice.



2011-12 Political CONTRIBUTIONs - $479,286 - ranks 837 of 20,981

LOBBYING - (2011) $2,440,00 - (2012) $2,816,000



Top Candidate Recipients in 2011-2012

Barack Obama (D) $30,412
Mitt Romney (R) $28,450
Robert Menendez (D-NJ) $12,500
Tom Carper (D-DE) $10,190
Joseph Crowley (D-NY) $10,000
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
Unrelated, yet not plausible? Scientifically a non-issue?

You, sir, are an ideological extremist.:cheers: And this is just one more example. Not critical or even skeptical in the least in some distinct aspects or possibilities, yet 100% confident in your contempt when it comes to intent and innuendo on the other hand. :laugh2:

...

The synergistic effects of mixing different medications is entirely a different issue, both scientifically and in regards to the OP. Recognizing this does not make me a ideological extremist.

You are more than welcome to start a thread on the synergistic effects of multiple medicines on the elderly. We are discussing the malpractice of one specific drug and how through fraud and kickbacks was aggressively pushed on captive groups in nursing homes by J&J.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
How about fast food? I think that is a scam. Lets take all the lazy, ignorant people that can't find it in themselves to cook their own meal and poison them until they are so obese and diabetic they DIE. In the town I live in, you drive by literally 6 fast food places before you can even see the parking lot for the grocery store. Fresh meat and vegetables are outrageously priced, but hey...Your choice of six different $1 dollar menus, high-caloric/high-fructose corn syrup drink, a complimentary fryer-trap special and you don't even have to get out of your gas and oil consuming vehicle! Matter of fact, sit and idle in line and waste some of that too while you're in the process of killing yourself slowly...

Fast Food is a choice.

Being prescribed medications by doctors, whom you have trust in as professionals, do be doing what is in YOUR best interests, especially when you have dementia and are unable to choose for yourself is a completely different issue once again.

Not at all comparable.
 

Lyrica

Songwriting Machine
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
13,086
Reaction score
40,169
I realized that pharmacorps only motive is money when i saw an ad for a new wonder drug. They waxed eloquent about the drug for 29 seconds and in the last second of the commercial htey quietly, and very quickly said, "warning may cause coma or death"

they don't give a **** about people.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
36,934
Reaction score
74,567
So what happens to the 2.2 billion. It never seems to go to the people that were hurt.

Conveniently "lost" until it can be funneled to the politicians and top level bureau appointees (poltical appointees). Again.
 

SteveGangi

V.I.P. Member
Joined
May 19, 2010
Messages
36,934
Reaction score
74,567
lǎo​wài;5618617 said:
Companies are people! With the exception that they can not ever be held accountable for any malfeasance. .
Purple tint noted.

So when does a company get executed then? :D

They seem to have a fvck of a lot of "exceptions". :hmm:
 

zeronalo

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
3,409
meanwhile - some kid who sold an undercover cop a joint is doing 10 years in prison. He never hurt anyone, intentionally or not. He will be a convicted felon for the rest of his life and he will suffer for it.

J&J - who did kill people, intentionally, will write off this fine as the cost of doing business and quickly forget it the next time they see an opportunity to make billions$$$$$

sounds fair - our government is doing a great job looking out for the people and protecting us from things like this every day............................

a fine example of your government being owned by big corporate america.

FReddy
 

nicolasrivera

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
19,607
Reaction score
10,935
2.2 Billion to J&J?? they most be having a killer party right now, that's peanuts money for them!!!
 

Fletch

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
3,029
Reaction score
1,586
I realized that pharmacorps only motive is money when i saw an ad for a new wonder drug. They waxed eloquent about the drug for 29 seconds and in the last second of the commercial htey quietly, and very quickly said, "warning may cause coma or death"

they don't give a **** about people.

This is because they are required to reveal all side effects known in the advertisements. All pharma companies are required to do this. This is why all the drug commercials follow pretty much the same format and sometimes eventually end with a reference to a magazine or publication that the target age group would read that has full disclosure. That's why those drug ads with all the info are in those magazines like Reader's Digest, etc.

Anything reported during a clinical trial has to be included in that information... anything a patient reports back to the doctor at the clinic during a clinical trial becomes a "side effect", and lives on the drug insert forever. So you see when the ads reveal all that negative side effect stuff, they are really doing you a favor.

The benchmark for drug approval with the FDA is that overall, the benefits outweigh the side effects. Unfortunately nobody cares about the thousands of people whose life was extended or quality of life improved, they just want to hear about the three guys who had a stroke and died. Think of it that way...


fletch
 

Fletch

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
3,029
Reaction score
1,586
Doesn't seem so bad when their drugs are copied without permission now. As they are obviously a bunch of gits.

Sorry to say the counterfeiters are a huge problem and a huge health risk. When something goes wrong with a counterfeit drug, the company who owns the drug being counterfeited will do a recall but guess what... nothing can be done because there is no serialization on the fakes for the recall. The counterfeiters manufacturing facilities are typically substandard at best, and ingredients used are anybody's guess.


fletch
 

Blues4U

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
15,213
Reaction score
20,431
My oldest daughter was prescribed this medicine for behavioral issues-
 

Fiat Lux

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
9,176
Reaction score
22,039
We are discussing the malpractice of one specific drug and how through fraud and kickbacks was aggressively pushed on captive groups in nursing homes by J&J.

Your hatred of corporate America sees you telling only half the story...

If we are truly discussing the malpractice of one specific drug, how come no mention has been made so far of the obviously thousands and thousands of registered medical practitioners who exercised (or more properly failed to exercise) their individual professional expertise is deciding whether or not this drug was suitable and appropriate for their patients...

Don't forget that these lazy bastards would undoubtably have charged the patient for each prescription carelessly and negligently given.

The drug may have been aggressively pushed by J&J, but it does not get into a single patient's hands, or into a single nursing home, unless a doctor prescribes it. Doctors who accept kick backs are as bad as those people who offer them.

These negligent doctors are a very major factor in why this outrageous scam was allowed to occur, and why people suffered strokes and died. At law, I am not sure that J&J could be pinged with the murders if they, at no time, actually recommended or administered the drug to any specific patients.

There should be many, many doctors investigated over this scam (and probably many prosecuted and/or struck off) if we are to be sure it won't be repeated.

And make no mistake... I'm not seeking to deflect responsibility away from J&J. People who knowingly break the laws, particularly in an area such as pharmaceuticals, should be punished individually and severely. It is the duty of all officers of a company to act in the best interests of a company, and that includes calling out fraud and dishonesty when it is occurring. That this was allowed to continue for years suggests that there were a lot of people in J&J who should be charged (just following orders having been eliminated as an excuse some time back...).

cheers
 

Fletch

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2009
Messages
3,029
Reaction score
1,586
Fast Food is a choice.

Being prescribed medications by doctors, whom you have trust in as professionals, do be doing what is in YOUR best interests, especially when you have dementia and are unable to choose for yourself is a completely different issue once again.

Not at all comparable.

This.

The problem is that the pharma companies get stuck between a rock and a hard place with the prescribing physicians. The rule is that the physicians can prescribe any medication to treat the patient they see fit, despite what indications the drug company has it approved for. They could write you dementia meds for a common cold and it's all legal.

In this case the pharma company likely took the heat for something that probably should have been equally blamed on the prescribing doctors, but the pharma companys can't burn bridges with that group so they suck it up, pay the fine and move on. They don't want the physicians giving a black eye to them and risk the dozen or so other JnJ drugs they rely on them to prescribe to stay alive.

One other thing to know is that when any division of a company is under duress from the FDA with something like a consent decree, all divisions of that company fall under extra scrutiny, the theory is if that is how they run one division then that must be how they run them all. Also there are other penalties, such as losing your ability to get any new approvals until you have a clean slate again, third party quality units, and daily fines among others... So a lot of times there is more motivation for a big company like JnJ to take an embarrassing hit like this than meets the eye to let the bigger machine get on with business.

And for those who think political connections can be pulled to get a pharma company out of hot water with the FDA when that happens, it doesn't work that way. I've been in the industry for 25 years and I've seen executives (usually not from the industry) try it and seen it backfire every time.


fletch
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
Your hatred of corporate America sees you telling only half the story...

If we are truly discussing the malpractice of one specific drug, how come no mention has been made so far of the obviously thousands and thousands of registered medical practitioners who exercised (or more properly failed to exercise) their individual professional expertise is deciding whether or not this drug was suitable and appropriate for their patients...


We won't hear that portion because this is never going to trial. They bought themselves out of that embarrassment. I would love to be able to tell that side of the story, but the numbers aren't given to the press or general public.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,930
This.

The problem is that the pharma companies get stuck between a rock and a hard place with the prescribing physicians. The rule is that the physicians can prescribe any medication to treat the patient they see fit, despite what indications the drug company has it approved for. They could write you dementia meds for a common cold and it's all legal.

In this case the pharma company likely took the heat for something that probably should have been equally blamed on the prescribing doctors, but the pharma companys can't burn bridges with that group so they suck it up, pay the fine and move on. They don't want the physicians giving a black eye to them and risk the dozen or so other JnJ drugs they rely on them to prescribe to stay alive.

One other thing to know is that when any division of a company is under duress from the FDA with something like a consent decree, all divisions of that company fall under extra scrutiny, the theory is if that is how they run one division then that must be how they run them all. Also there are other penalties, such as losing your ability to get any new approvals until you have a clean slate again, third party quality units, and daily fines among others... So a lot of times there is more motivation for a big company like JnJ to take an embarrassing hit like this than meets the eye to let the bigger machine get on with business.

And for those who think political connections can be pulled to get a pharma company out of hot water with the FDA when that happens, it doesn't work that way. I've been in the industry for 25 years and I've seen executives (usually not from the industry) try it and seen it backfire every time.


fletch


That's not what was alleged:

"Meanwhile, the company paid millions of dollars in kickbacks to Omnicare Inc, the nation's largest pharmacy specializing in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients, under various guises including "educational funding."

Janssen's sales representatives "aggressively" promoted Risperdal to doctors and other prescribers who treated elderly dementia patients, and through a special "ElderCare sales force" targeted nursing home operators.

"The company also provided incentives for off-label promotion" and based sales representatives' bonuses on total sales, not just sales for FDA-approved uses, the DOJ said."
 

Latest Threads



Top