The Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) urged authorities in Kedah to take immediate action to resolve pollution problems in Bukit Ijok, Mukim Pulai in Baling.
CAP president, SM Mohamed Idris, said a recent survey showed that the pollution was caused by a nearby waste landfill.
He said leachate from the landfill was polluting the river, giving off a putrid stench and killing livestock and crops of local residents.
During the rainy season, he said leachate from the landfill would flow into the river, turning its water black.
Fish in the rivers are becoming extinct as a result of the pollution and livestock such as ducks have died after drinking the contaminated water.
“About 200 residents have been affected by this pollution,” said Idris. If the problem is left unresolved, he warned that residents would be hit hard both economically and personally.
CAP’s survey also found fruit trees cultivated by residents have died due to the pollution while those who come in contact with the river water have suffered from skin problems.
When there is a dry spell, the area would be infested with thousands of flies, compounding the residents’ problems.
CAP fears that the residents’ health and well-being would be seriously threatened if the pollution was not rid of soon.
He urged the Kedah state government, Baling district council, the departments of environment, drainage and irrigation, agriculture and health to tackle the problem soon.
He said the authorities should take immediate action to address the problem and consider relocating the landfill to another suitable area if necessary.
“Authorities must ensure that the party operating the landfill implement adequate measures and stop the environmental pollution,” said Idris.
During the last few weeks the public has heard the wildly positive and optimistic views of both the government and some local scientists concerning the Lynas plant in Gebeng, Kuantan.
On 20th March, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (Mosti), Dr Maximus Ongkili, told the Dewan Rakyat that the Lynas plant is safe and not harmful to public health.
On 20th March, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (Mosti), Dr Maximus Ongkili, told the Dewan Rakyat that the Lynas plant is safe and not harmful to public health.
He said that the effluent from the plant contained low radioactive material. He explained that the effluent was not categorised as a radioactive material waste by the International Atomic Energy Agency, as it contained natural radioactive material ('Ongkili: Proposed Gebeng Rare Earth Plant Is Safe', Bernama, 23 March 2011).
Unfortunately, he failed to give the effluent the proper name: Technologically-Enhanced, Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (Tenorm).
Tenorm and Fallacy of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
Unfortunately, he failed to give the effluent the proper name: Technologically-Enhanced, Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (Tenorm).
Tenorm and Fallacy of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)
Tenorm is produced when activities such as uranium mining, or sewage sludge treatment, concentrate or expose radioactive materials that occur naturally in ores, soils, water, or other natural materials.
In other words, this natural radioactive material has been made dangerous because it was removed from the ground and concentrated by mechanical and chemical processes.
In other words, this natural radioactive material has been made dangerous because it was removed from the ground and concentrated by mechanical and chemical processes.
It has been exported by Australia and will be left in Malaysia as waste by Lynas.
The radioactive material does not disappear once it reaches and is processed in Malaysia, and this dangerous material will be left in Malaysia.
The radioactive material does not disappear once it reaches and is processed in Malaysia, and this dangerous material will be left in Malaysia.
Malaysians will need to keep this securely away from humans for hundreds of thousands of years.
Lynas and AELB have made the Tenorm sound like low level waste by merely diluting the waste until it conforms with IAEA regulations.
Lynas and AELB have made the Tenorm sound like low level waste by merely diluting the waste until it conforms with IAEA regulations.
Diluting does not make the radiation ‘go away', and if the diluting liquid evaporates, you will again have concentrated radioactive material very harmful to people. The uranium and thorium will not evaporate with time.
Bear in mind that Australia has categorically stated that it will refuse to receive radioactive materials from other countries.
Bear in mind that Australia has categorically stated that it will refuse to receive radioactive materials from other countries.
During the recent parliamentary select committee (PSC) public hearings on Lynas, nuclear physicist Dr Abdul Rahman Omar reportedly praised the value of the thorium wastes i.e. one tonne of thorium "can generate 1 gigawatt of electricity a year which is worth RM 1 billion to RM 2 billion, multiply this by 2,000 tonnes a year that the factory will produce, then it is worth between RM2 trillion to RM4 trillion in electricity". (Read nuclear energy and nuclear reactor).
He added that this technology dubbed Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) was mooted by the Americans at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, between 1968 to 1972 but was abandoned in favour of uranium due to its abundance. "China is now working very hard on using thorium for energy generation".
He added that this technology dubbed Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) was mooted by the Americans at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, between 1968 to 1972 but was abandoned in favour of uranium due to its abundance. "China is now working very hard on using thorium for energy generation".
Alternatively, the gypsum by product produced from Lynas could be sold to China which would extract the thorium for energy production", he said ('Lynas' thorium can generate RM4 trillion in energy', Nigel Aw, Malaysiakini, May 21, 2012).
However, according to an article published in the UK Guardian (23 June 2011), debunking thorium as a greener nuclear option, it states that "There is a significant sticking point to the promotion of thorium as the ‘great green hope' of clean energy production: It remains unproven on a commercial scale. While it has been around since the 1950s (and an experimental 10MW LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) did run for five years during the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, though using uranium and plutonium as fuel) it is still a next generation nuclear technology - theoretical".
The article further states that although China has announced that it intends to develop a thorium MSR, nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), says "the world shouldn't hold its breath".
He added that "Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding".
The article states that "Those who support renewables say they will have come so far in cost and efficiency terms by the time the technology is perfected and upscaled that thorium reactors will already be uneconomic. Indeed, if renewables had a fraction of nuclear's current subsidies they could already be light years ahead".
Health risks of thorium and other tenorms
All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic by-products and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives.
Oliver Tickell, author of ‘Kyoto2', says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘"nclude many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters".
Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a ‘dishonest fantasy' perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby. "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 - "so these are really U-233 reactors'," says Karamoskos.
"This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors", he adds, "because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).
However, according to an article published in the UK Guardian (23 June 2011), debunking thorium as a greener nuclear option, it states that "There is a significant sticking point to the promotion of thorium as the ‘great green hope' of clean energy production: It remains unproven on a commercial scale. While it has been around since the 1950s (and an experimental 10MW LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) did run for five years during the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the US, though using uranium and plutonium as fuel) it is still a next generation nuclear technology - theoretical".
The article further states that although China has announced that it intends to develop a thorium MSR, nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), says "the world shouldn't hold its breath".
He added that "Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding".
The article states that "Those who support renewables say they will have come so far in cost and efficiency terms by the time the technology is perfected and upscaled that thorium reactors will already be uneconomic. Indeed, if renewables had a fraction of nuclear's current subsidies they could already be light years ahead".
Health risks of thorium and other tenorms
All other issues aside, thorium is still nuclear energy, say environmentalists, its reactors disgorging the same toxic by-products and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives.
Oliver Tickell, author of ‘Kyoto2', says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘"nclude many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters".
Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a ‘dishonest fantasy' perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby. "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 - "so these are really U-233 reactors'," says Karamoskos.
"This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors", he adds, "because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).
"Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste".
Referring to the UK, The Guardian article says that "with billions of pounds already spent on nuclear research, reactor construction and decommissioning costs - dwarfing commitments to renewables - and proposed reform of the UK electricity markets apparently hiding subsidies to the nuclear industry, the thorium dream is considered by many to be a dangerous diversion".
Citing Jean McSorley senior consultant for Greenpeace's nuclear campaign: "Even if thorium technology does progress to the point where it might be commercially viable, it will face the same problems as conventional nuclear: it is not renewable or sustainable and cannot effectively connect to smart grids. The technology is not tried and tested, and none of the main players is interested. Thorium reactors are no more than a distraction".
According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who is a radiation expert, thorium reactors also produce a lot of Americium, which is much more toxic than plutonium. "I do not think that, even if thorium some day becomes a viable option, they will ever want to separate out the thorium from the Malaysian waste, where it has been significantly diluted so that it appears to be below regulatory concern.
Referring to the UK, The Guardian article says that "with billions of pounds already spent on nuclear research, reactor construction and decommissioning costs - dwarfing commitments to renewables - and proposed reform of the UK electricity markets apparently hiding subsidies to the nuclear industry, the thorium dream is considered by many to be a dangerous diversion".
Citing Jean McSorley senior consultant for Greenpeace's nuclear campaign: "Even if thorium technology does progress to the point where it might be commercially viable, it will face the same problems as conventional nuclear: it is not renewable or sustainable and cannot effectively connect to smart grids. The technology is not tried and tested, and none of the main players is interested. Thorium reactors are no more than a distraction".
According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who is a radiation expert, thorium reactors also produce a lot of Americium, which is much more toxic than plutonium. "I do not think that, even if thorium some day becomes a viable option, they will ever want to separate out the thorium from the Malaysian waste, where it has been significantly diluted so that it appears to be below regulatory concern.
"You cannot say it is a valuable commodity and also release it as of no concern! Moreover, you are not dealing with pure thorium, but with radioactive material with a long list of radioactive decay products some of which are very radioactive. New reactors will get their thorium from India or Australia. Malaysia would be considered a secondary or tertiary source," she states.
In other words, there is no economic possibility or feasibility that anyone will use the Malaysian waste for thorium when there are large direct sources of thorium to be had immediately in Australia or India.
Dr. Bertell is a nuclear health expert who has done extensive research on nuclear health impacts all over the world including the Marshall Islands, India, Germany, Ukraine, US and Canada. She has been a consultant to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency. She was a key witness during the Bukit Merah court hearings.
However, contrary to the world experts, the local medical and nuclear so-called experts have recently testified to the PSC that the thorium produced from Lynas was too low to pose significant health dangers.
In contrast to what the PSC has been told by the local so-called experts, the health impacts of radiation are not benign. In a comparative study by V. T. Padmanabhan et al of inhabitants of regions of normal and high background radiation in Kerala from 1988 - 1994, the researchers showed that thorium health damage from monazite sands was evident (International Journal of Health Services Vol. 34 No. 3 pp483-515, 2004).
The study revealed that there was a high incidence of heritable anomalies in the high background region (HBRR). There was a statistically significant increase of Down syndrome, autosomal dominant anomalies and multifactorial diseases and an insignificant increase of autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive anomalies in the HBRR.
The main findings of the study have been summarised as follows:
In other words, there is no economic possibility or feasibility that anyone will use the Malaysian waste for thorium when there are large direct sources of thorium to be had immediately in Australia or India.
Dr. Bertell is a nuclear health expert who has done extensive research on nuclear health impacts all over the world including the Marshall Islands, India, Germany, Ukraine, US and Canada. She has been a consultant to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency. She was a key witness during the Bukit Merah court hearings.
However, contrary to the world experts, the local medical and nuclear so-called experts have recently testified to the PSC that the thorium produced from Lynas was too low to pose significant health dangers.
In contrast to what the PSC has been told by the local so-called experts, the health impacts of radiation are not benign. In a comparative study by V. T. Padmanabhan et al of inhabitants of regions of normal and high background radiation in Kerala from 1988 - 1994, the researchers showed that thorium health damage from monazite sands was evident (International Journal of Health Services Vol. 34 No. 3 pp483-515, 2004).
The study revealed that there was a high incidence of heritable anomalies in the high background region (HBRR). There was a statistically significant increase of Down syndrome, autosomal dominant anomalies and multifactorial diseases and an insignificant increase of autosomal recessive and X-linked recessive anomalies in the HBRR.
The main findings of the study have been summarised as follows:
- The relative risk for chromosomal, autosomal dominant, and multifactorial anomalies is higher in the HBRR.
- For congenital anomalies (WHO's International Classification of Diseases, ICD 740-757), there is no difference between the areas. Within the study and control areas, ‘nonmigrant' couples have 51 percent and 61 percent excess relative risk (ERR), respectively, in comparison to ‘migrant' couples. The ERR among the related versus the unrelated couples is 96 percent in the HBRR and 41 percent in the NRR (normal radiation region).
- Rates of multifactorial anomalies and multiple deaths are higher in the HBRR. Again, the related and the nonmigrant couples have higher risk than the migrants and the unrelated, respectively. The rates among the migrants in both areas are more or less the same.
- If all untoward outcomes other than Down syndrome and Mendelian anomalies are grouped together, 6.4 percent of the unrelated ‘migrants' in the NRR are affected versus 16.4 percent of the related couples in the HBRR.
The authors suspect that exposure to radiation was genetically significant. "Besides the external radiation from beta particles and gamma rays from the soil, there is the possibility of internal exposure through air, water, and food. Soman (27) estimated the per capita daily uptake of radium-228 by the study population as 4.72 Bq.
"Based on the average consumption of sardines, Van de Laar (18) estimated the daily intake as less than 0.01 Bq per person. Since the coastal land is less fertile and farming and husbandry are restricted to small pockets, the internal exposure is mainly from poultry products, fish, and accidental ingestion of fine grains of monazite in childhood."
They revealed that the mean cumulative exposure to external radiation during the reproductive life of people living in the high-background radiation regions is 18 rads for women and 22 rads for men, six times the exposure in the normal radiation region.
Conclusion
Thorium from Lynas is Tenorm and a radioactive waste which has serious health risks.
We urge the PSC and the government to seriously weigh the published and reviewed scientific findings and views of the international experts quoted above before decisions on Lynas are made.
We strongly urge that Lynas be NOT allowed to operate in Malaysia.
They revealed that the mean cumulative exposure to external radiation during the reproductive life of people living in the high-background radiation regions is 18 rads for women and 22 rads for men, six times the exposure in the normal radiation region.
Conclusion
Thorium from Lynas is Tenorm and a radioactive waste which has serious health risks.
We urge the PSC and the government to seriously weigh the published and reviewed scientific findings and views of the international experts quoted above before decisions on Lynas are made.
We strongly urge that Lynas be NOT allowed to operate in Malaysia.
SM Mohd Idris is president of the Consumers' Association of Penang and Sahabat Alam Malaysia.
The record-setting settlement has raised several questions about the system of justice. What can the $3 billion fine for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) mean to people who have been affected adversely or have even lost loved ones because of the side effects of drugs, which GSK failed to report? Is justice served in allowing offenders to buy their way out?
What about the people in GSK who took the decisions to not report safety concerns or to bribe doctors to push the drugs for uses not approved by the regulating agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)?
The hefty fine settles criminal and civil charges of unlawful promotion of certain drugs including failure to report safety data and concerns about side effects, and for alleged false price reporting practices.
While $3 billion might be a record settlement, is it that hefty? Is it really hard on the company? Take the case of Avandia, an oral anti-diabetic, one of the drugs GSK is charged with marketing illegally. Avandia marketed since 1999 raked in over $2 billion annually. GSK is also charged with unlawful promotion of Paxil, an anti-depressant. On the market since 1994, Paxil too brought in over $2 billion annually. These two drugs alone helped GSK rake in several billions every year for over a decade. This is not even counting all the other drugs that are part of this settlement such as Wellbutrin, Advair, Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex and the billions they must have earned for GSK. For being able to net sales worth so many billions, a one-time settlement of $3 billion does seem like a small price to pay to do big business.
Most major pharma companies have been accused of bribing doctors, hiding side effects of drugs and promoting drugs for uses not approved by the FDA, called off-label marketing. In 2009, Pfizer had set the record paying $2.3 billion fines for illegal marketing of 13 different drugs. In the same year, Eli Lily had to pay $1.4 billion over the marketing of Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic. Astra Zeneca and Novartis too have had to settle charges with huge fines. Over 180 pharmaceutical fraud cases, covering more than 500 drugs, are now under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Obviously, the continuing violations by pharmaceutical companies, despite such huge fines, shows that these fines are no deterrent to the companies. It is said that, to the industry, the hefty fines have simplybecome a cost of doing business.
Director of the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, Dr Sidney Wolfe pointed out that the settlement was nothing new for GSK, which like many pharma companies has been a repeat offender. “Until more meaningful penalties and the prospect of jail time for company heads who are responsible for such activity become commonplace, companies will continue defrauding the government and putting patients’ lives in danger.”
In this context, unctuous statements by the US administration about the “historic” multi-billion dollar settlement being “a sign of the US government’s firm commitment to protecting the American people and holding accountable those who commit health care fraud ” merely masks the fact that companies and the executives are being allowed to buy their way out of punishment for willful and deliberate harm they cause to people.
Trust me: if thousands of politicians, or their cousins, the nouveau riche, had died on that apocalyptic night in Bhopal, Anderson would still be in an Indian prison, rather than in America, protected by his company, and the company that his company keeps. But only the poor died in Bhopal. We treat our poor as dispensable chattel whose death is meaningless in the economic calculus, since there is no shortage of supply. Bhopal is class war. Is it surprising — or not? — that while even the Obama administration jumped in with some gratuitous advice, Dr Manmohan Singh had nothing to say? Perhaps the Prime Minister would have been repetitive. In essence, the signal from Washington and Delhi is the same: forget the dead, get on with multinational life. Barack Obama was not elected to ensure justice for the Indian victim. He is in the White House to protect American business, and defend the two-laws theory that motivates American international relations, whether in war or peace. When 11 American workers were killed in an oil rig blow-up in the Gulf of Mexico, Washington demanded $1.5 billion from BP. Nearly 20,000 dead in Bhopal, half a million affected, and the total compensation is $470 million. Do the math. Obama has promised to penalize BP for the current oil spill to the extent of many billions of dollars. Magistrate Manoj Tiwari wants only Rs 5 lakh as reparation from Carbide for mass slaughter. When Exxon was fined $5 billion for the Alaska oil spill, nearly $40,000 was spent on the rehabilitation of every affected sea otter. The victims of Bhopal are, so far, entitled to $200 each. Don’t do the math. It may turn you into a cynic.How big pharma fines won't work unless they're accompanied by prosecutions BY ROBERT REICH, Earlier this week the Justice Department announced a $3 billion settlement of criminal and civil charges against pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline — the largest pharmaceutical settlement in history — for improperly marketing prescription drugs in the late 1990s to the mid-2000s.The charges are deadly serious. Among other things, Glaxo was charged with promoting to kids under 18 an antidepressant approved only for adults; pushing two other antidepressants for unapproved purposes, including remedying sexual dysfunction; and, to further boost sales of prescription drugs, showering doctors with gifts, consulting contracts, speaking fees, even tickets to sporting events.$3 billion may sound like a lot of money, but during these years Glaxo made $27.5 billion on these three antidepressants alone, according to IMS Health, a data research firm — so the penalty could almost be considered a cost of doing business.Besides, to the extent the penalty affects Glaxo’s profits and its share price, the wrong people will be feeling the financial pain. Most of today’s Glaxo shareholders bought into the company after the illegal profits were already built into the prices they paid for their shares.Not a single executive has been charged — even though some charges against the company are criminal. Glaxo’s current CEO came onboard after all this happened. Glaxo has agreed to reclaim the bonuses of any executives who engaged in or supervised illegal behavior, but the company hasn’t officially admitted to any wrongdoing – and without legal charges against any executive it’s impossible to know whether Glaxo will follow through.The Glaxo case is the latest and biggest in a series of Justice Department prosecutions of Big Pharma for illegally marketing prescription drugs. In May, Abbott Laboratories settled for $1 Cynicism is never irrational. The irrational, often wrong, sometimes right, are impelled by instinct, heart or even conscience. Cynics are morality-proof. They prefer data to truth. Delhi has set the gold standard for cynicism. It operates on four axioms: public memory is a dwarf; anger is effervescent; media can be massaged at the appropriate moment; any public crisis can be assuaged with crumbs, while the promotion of private interests continues off-screen. Jairam Ramesh’s promise of a Green Tribunal in Bhopal is a classical instance of a crumb dipped in the pickle of hypocrisy. Where was this or any other tribunal in the last 26 years when the dead, the deformed and blind babies and the stillborn fetuses were a reminder that justice must be done? Or is this tribunal meant for the next onslaught by the dogs of chemical war upon the sleeping slums of Bhopal? Who was Veerappa Moily trying to fool when he claimed that the case against Warren Anderson had not been closed? Why doesn’t he keep the case open for a few more years, until God closes the chapter by taking Anderson away to whichever destination has been allotted to the butcher of Bhopal? A Group of Ministers has been appointed — merely to buy time until the return of amnesia. The true Bhopal verdict was delivered within four days of the tragedy, in December 1984, not on June 7, 2010, when Anderson was smuggled out of Bhopal on a state government aircraft and then put on a plane to America. Since then we have witnessed a pretend-justice farce played out by government, police and the judiciary, including the Supreme Court. The last is most culpable, since we hold a Chief Justice of India like A M Ahmadi to higher standards of probity than we do politicians or policemen. Ahmadi got his proper thank you note after he retired. Chief judicial magistrate Mohan Tiwari’s judgment served only one useful purpose. The sheer scale of its magnanimity towards the accused lit a fuse under the volcano of collective guilt. The lava is spewing from myriad crevices, scorching and burning many-layered masks that have hidden deceit for a generation. As memories were stoked, officials, some perhaps frustrated by the fact that their silence had not been rewarded, revealed how successive governments had intervened to slow down the judicial process and sabotage any chance of Anderson’s extradition. Union Carbide and its collaborators, including Indians of course, have sustained themselves with a lie, that it was an Indian disaster since the plant was built and run by Indians. The design is an exact replica of an American plant, and an American who was terrified of being tried in India was in charge of management. The political establishment assumed that June 7 would be just another day in a long calendar, possibly punctuated by an occasional, futile scream. The court was fortified, and entry denied to petitioners, victims and media. My one memory of this courtroom, gleaned from television, shall be of the smug grin of an obese policemen laughing at two old women, their faces contorted by rage and frustration, who knew that the system which had stolen their lives had also cheated their children in death.
In the biggest health care fraud settlement in US history, a federal judge approved a fine totalling $3bn for criminal and civil violations by the British pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline, last week.
| "Most of the examples ... are of a drug that is approved for disease A and it is thought to be safe and effective for disease A but they're not selling enough. It's still on patent ... as long as it's on patent, as long as they can charge more, they will start pushing it for disease B and C and D for which there is no evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks so this is a strategy widely used by companies to increase their sales." - Dr Sidney Wolfe, co-founder and director of the Health Research Group |
The company admitted illegally marketing the popular antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and also withholding the data on the health risks of its best-selling diabetes drug, Avandia.
For seven years Glaxo failed to report data showing drug Avandia increased the risk of heart attack by as much as 40 per cent.
And the company claimed Wellbutrin was beneficial for weightloss and treating sexual dysfunction.
In the case of Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline promoted the drug for use by children and teenagers, despite the US Food and Drug Administration not approving it for patients under 18.
In fact, a clinical trial had found that the drug made adolecents more likely to attempt suicide.
Whistleblowers said that the company gave doctors lavish trips and spa treatments in order to pursuade them to prescribe the drug for uses not approved of through testing - what are known as off-label prescriptions.
Glaxo also hired a company to write a medical journal article downplaying the risks.
The US deputy attorney general called the settlement historic, saying it sent a clear warning to any company that chooses to break the law.
| "They are doing the calculation ... and it comes out in their favour that you might as well take the risk here. The basic economics are fairly straight forward, we know that these drugs could be produced, with few exceptions, very cheaply .... There is an enormous incentive for them to lie, cheat, steal, whatever, try and push these drugs." - Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research |
But there have been some other big drug companies that have been caught acting illegally.
In January 2009, the American pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly agreed to pay more than $1.4bn for illegally promoting the drug Zyprexa.
Prior to Glaxo, the previous record-setting case involved Pfizer Inc., which in September 2009 paid $2.3bn for improperly marketing 13 different drugs, including Viagra.
In April 2012, Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary were ordered to pay more than $1.2bn for minimising or concealing dangers associated with the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.
And in May, Abbott Laboratories settled for $1.6bn in regard to false marketing of the antiepileptic and mood-stabilising drug Depakote. So, with the profits over more than a decade of illegal selling far larger than the amount Glaxo agreed to pay, will pharmaceutical companies really be put off? And do drug companies put profits before patients in the US?
Inside Story Americas, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, discusses with guests: Dr Sidney Wolfe, the co-founder and director of the Health Research Group; Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research; and Wendell Potter, an author and corporate health analyst.
Inside Story Americas also invited GlaxoSmithKline to take part in this discussion, but the company declined.
| "Many observers, including myself believe that as long as it is just money that's involved, it's not a sufficient deterrent. The drugs that were involved in this settlement earned tens of billions of dollars over a long period of time. So the settlement was less than a single year's sales of just one of those drugs, Avandia, the drug that I was involved in exposing the risks of. And so it's just money, and it's just part of doing business. Many people, particularly on Capitol Hill, believe that it's time to begin holding these executives accountable for actual jail time when they commit this kind of criminal fraud." Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic who in 2007 published findings that showed the health risks of the drug Avandia |
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE GLAXOSMITHKLINE FRAUD CASE:
- GlaxoSmithKline promoted antidepressants for unapproved uses
- Glaxo failed to disclose diabetes drug increased heart attack risk
- The company pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $3bn fines - the largest settlement ever by a drug company
- The fine includes $1bn criminal fine and $2bn for the civil settlement
- The $2bn civil settlement involved asthma drug Advair and claims that Glaxo overcharged the US government
- The criminal charges involved Paxil Wellbutrin and Avandia
- The antidepressant, Paxil, brought in $11.6bn in sales for Glaxo
- Sales of the diabetes drug, Avandia, brought in $10.4bn
- Sales of Wellbutrin, another antidepressant, brought in $5.9bn for Glaxo
No comments:
Post a Comment