Flu Crazy 200 - The Largest Pharmaceutical Companies in the world, by size
Johnson & Johnson
Pfizer Inc
Roche Holding Ltd.
Novartis AG
Merck & Co.,
GlaxoSmithKline plc
Sanofi SA
Abbott Laboratories
Novo-Nordisk A/S
Bayer AG
AstraZeneca plc
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen,Inc.
Eli Lilly
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Gilead Sciences,Inc.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Celgene Corporation
Allergan,Inc
McKesson Corporation
Astellas Pharma Inc.
Shire PLC
CSL Ltd.
Fresenius SE
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Cardinal Health, Inc.
Daiichi Sankyo Company
Eisai Co.,Ltd.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
AmerisourceBergen Corporation
Mylan Inc
Chugai Pharmaceutical Co
Perrigo Company
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc
Forest Laboratories,Inc
Elan Corporation plc
Life Technologies Corporation
Herbalife Ltd.
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma
UCB S.A.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Taisho Pharmaceutical Holdings
Merck KGaA
Ono Pharmaceutical Co
Aspen Pharmacare Holdings
Kyowa Hakko Kirin
Grifols S.A.
Hospira,Inc
Yunnan Baiyao Group
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories
Shanghai Pharmaceuticals Holding
Actelion Ltd.
Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine
Shionogi & Co
Cipla Ltd
Kangmei Pharmaceutical Co.,
IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.
Shandong Weigao Group
Lupin Limited
Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co.,
Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma
Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings
Warner Chilcott PLC
Galenica AG
H. Lundbeck A/S
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
PT Kalbe Farma
GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Dabur India Ltd
Santen Pharmaceutical Co.,
Sichuan Kelun Pharmaceutical
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.
Tianjin Tasly Pharmaceutical
Chr. Hansen Holding
Celesio AG
Shenzhen Hepalink Pharmaceutical
Richter Gedeon Nyrt.
Beijing Tongrentang Co.,
Orion Oyj
Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Medipal Holdings Corp
Shanghai Fosun Pharmaceutical
Suzuken Co., Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare
Jilin Aodong Medicine
China Resources Sanjiu
A Meda AB
Jazz Pharmaceuticals PLC.
Techne Corporation
United Therapeutics Corporation
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Hualan Biological Engineering
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
ONYX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Krka, tovarna zdravil,
Harbin Pharmaceutical Group
Zhejiang Hisun Pharmaceutical
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical
Seattle Genetics, Inc.
Qualicorp SA
Ipsen SA
Hikma Pharmaceuticals plc
Miraca Holdings Inc.
Fleury S.A.
Alkermes Public Limited
GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare
Kobayashi Pharmaceutical Co.,
Denki Kagaku Kogyo
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation
ViroPharma, Inc.
Genomma Lab Internacional
Tsumura & Co.
Vivus, Inc. United
Divi's Laboratories Ltd.
Nippon Kayaku Company
Huadong Medicine Co.,
Beijing SL Pharmaceutical
Gansu Yasheng Industrial
BTG plc United
Guilin Jiqi Pharmaceutical
Zhejiang Medicine Co.,
STADA Arzneimittel AG
Pharmacyclics, Inc.
Sawai Pharmaceutical Co.,
Shenzhen Salubris Pharmaceuticals
S&P Pharmaceutical Co
Piramal Healthcare Limited
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd
Theravance, Inc.
Tieling Newcity Investment
Zhangzhou Pientzehuang Pharmaceutical
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries
Human Genome Sciences,
Recordati S.p.A.
Impax Laboratories Inc.
Wuhan Humanwell Healthcare
Financiere de Tubize
Chongqing Zhifei Biological
DiaSorin S.p.A.
Beijing Double-Crane Pharmaceutical
Opko Health Inc.
Inner Mongolia Yili
Kyorin Holdings Inc
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals Inc.
China Shineway Pharmaceutical
Almirall S.A.
Amarin Corporation plc
Adcock Ingram Holdings
Corporativo Fragua, S.A.
Rohto Pharmaceutical Co.,
Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Co
Mochida Pharmaceutical Co.,
Toho Holdings Co.,
Par Pharmaceutical Companies,
Halozyme Therapeutics, Inc.
Kaken Pharmaceutical Co.,
Tibet Urban Development
Virbac SA
Jiangxi Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical
Tempo Scan Pacific,
Wockhardt Ltd.
China Medical System
Guilin Sanjin Pharmaceutical
Scinopharm Taiwan, Ltd.
Shanghai RAAS Blood Products Co
BB Biotech AG
Sartorius Stedim Biotech
Akorn, Inc. United
Xizang Haisco Pharmaceutical
Guizhou Bailing Group
Kissei Pharmaceutical Co.,
Tibet Cheezheng Tibet Medicine Co, Inc.
The Medicines Company
AstraZeneca Pharma
Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical
Green Cross Corp
Jiangsu Wuzhong Industrial
Showing posts with label pharma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pharma. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 7, 2011
Japan suspends use of pediatric vaccines from Pfizer & Sanofi
Bloomberg is reporting that the Japanese ministry of health has suspended the use of pediatric vaccines from Sanofi Aventis (SAN.PA) and Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), following the deaths of four children, between March 2 and March 4.
Pfizer's Prevenar and Sanofi's ActHIB have been suspended in Japan at least until tomorrow, until a panel can meet to discuss the deaths.
Prevnar is used to protect children from meningitis and pneumonia. While ActHIB is used to prevent Haemophilus influenzae type b.
The Bloomberg article can be found here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/japan-stops-use-of-pfizer-sanofi-vaccines-on-four-deaths-1-.html
Pfizer's Prevenar and Sanofi's ActHIB have been suspended in Japan at least until tomorrow, until a panel can meet to discuss the deaths.
Prevnar is used to protect children from meningitis and pneumonia. While ActHIB is used to prevent Haemophilus influenzae type b.
The Bloomberg article can be found here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-07/japan-stops-use-of-pfizer-sanofi-vaccines-on-four-deaths-1-.html
Sunday, March 6, 2011
About Allergan, Inc (NYSE: AGN)
About Allergan, Inc. (NYSE: AGN)
2525 Dupont Drive
Irvine, California, 92612
I.R.S. Employer Identification No.: 95-1622442
website: http://www.allergan.com/index.htm
Total Revenue: $ 4,919,400,000 (2010)
About Allergan (from Form 10-K):
We are a multi-specialty health care company focused on developing and commercializing innovative pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices and over-the-counter products that enable people to live life to its greatest potential — to see more clearly, move more freely and express themselves more fully. Our diversified approach enables us to follow our research and development into new specialty areas where unmet needs are significant.
We discover, develop and commercialize specialty pharmaceutical, biologics, medical device and over-the-counter products for the ophthalmic, neurological, medical aesthetics, medical dermatology, breast aesthetics, obesity intervention, urological and other specialty markets in more than 100 countries around the world. Our diversified business model includes products for which patients may be eligible for reimbursement and cash pay products that consumers pay for directly. Based on internal information and assumptions, we estimate that in fiscal year 2010, approximately 71% of our net product sales were derived from reimbursable products and 29% of our net product sales were derived from cash pay products.
We are a pioneer in specialty pharmaceutical, biologic and medical device research and development, with global efforts targeting products and technologies related to eye care, skin care, neuromodulators, medical aesthetics, obesity intervention, urology and neurology. In 2010, our research and development expenditures were approximately 16.7% of our product net sales or approximately $804.6 million. We supplement our own research and development activities with our commitment to identify and obtain new technologies through in-licensing, research collaborations, joint ventures and acquisitions.
We were founded in 1950 and incorporated in Delaware in 1977. Our principal executive offices are located at 2525 Dupont Drive, Irvine, California, 92612, and our telephone number at that location is (714) 246-4500. Our Internet website address is www.allergan.com.
FDA Accused of going soft on Allergan (AGN)
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/03/fda-accused-of-going-soft-on-allergan.html
200 Largest Pharmaceutical Companies in the World
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/02/flucrazy-200-200-largest-pharmaceutical.html
2525 Dupont Drive
Irvine, California, 92612
I.R.S. Employer Identification No.: 95-1622442
website: http://www.allergan.com/index.htm
Total Revenue: $ 4,919,400,000 (2010)
About Allergan (from Form 10-K):
We are a multi-specialty health care company focused on developing and commercializing innovative pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices and over-the-counter products that enable people to live life to its greatest potential — to see more clearly, move more freely and express themselves more fully. Our diversified approach enables us to follow our research and development into new specialty areas where unmet needs are significant.
We discover, develop and commercialize specialty pharmaceutical, biologics, medical device and over-the-counter products for the ophthalmic, neurological, medical aesthetics, medical dermatology, breast aesthetics, obesity intervention, urological and other specialty markets in more than 100 countries around the world. Our diversified business model includes products for which patients may be eligible for reimbursement and cash pay products that consumers pay for directly. Based on internal information and assumptions, we estimate that in fiscal year 2010, approximately 71% of our net product sales were derived from reimbursable products and 29% of our net product sales were derived from cash pay products.
We are a pioneer in specialty pharmaceutical, biologic and medical device research and development, with global efforts targeting products and technologies related to eye care, skin care, neuromodulators, medical aesthetics, obesity intervention, urology and neurology. In 2010, our research and development expenditures were approximately 16.7% of our product net sales or approximately $804.6 million. We supplement our own research and development activities with our commitment to identify and obtain new technologies through in-licensing, research collaborations, joint ventures and acquisitions.
We were founded in 1950 and incorporated in Delaware in 1977. Our principal executive offices are located at 2525 Dupont Drive, Irvine, California, 92612, and our telephone number at that location is (714) 246-4500. Our Internet website address is www.allergan.com.
FDA Accused of going soft on Allergan (AGN)
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/03/fda-accused-of-going-soft-on-allergan.html
200 Largest Pharmaceutical Companies in the World
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/02/flucrazy-200-200-largest-pharmaceutical.html
Report warns parents against over treating fever
A recent report in the journal "Pediatrics" may not prove to be very popular with parents and some caregivers. The authors contend that in most cases fever in children is a good thing and helps normalize body temperature, and in and of itself is not particularly dangerous.
Further, the study suggests that it is not a good idea to wake a child just to treat them with ibuprofen or acetaminophen.
"Fever" accounts for upwards of one-third of all trips to the pediatrician. Yet, parents may be over reacting to these symptoms and may be over treating their children (and are subject to "fever phobia"). The study asserts that the main goal in treating a fever is simply to make the child more comfortable, not to lower temperature.
The full report can be found here:
http://bit.ly/foAUE1
Excerpt:
SUMMARY
Appropriate counseling on the management of fever begins by helping parents understand that fever, in and of itself, is not known to endanger a generally healthy child. In contrast, fever may actually be of benefit; thus, the real goal of antipyretic therapy is not simply to normalize body temperature but to improve the overall comfort and well-being of the child. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen, when used in appropriate doses, are generally regarded as safe and effective agents in most clinical situations. However, as with all drugs, they should be used judiciously to minimize the risk of adverse drug effects and toxicity. Combination therapy with acetaminophen and ibuprofen may place infants and children at increased risk because of dosing errors and adverse outcomes, and these potential risks must be carefully considered. When counseling a family on the management of fever in a child, pediatricians and other health care providers should minimize fever phobia and emphasize that antipyretic use does not prevent febrile seizures. Pediatricians should focus instead on monitoring for signs/symptoms of serious illness, improving the child's comfort by maintaining hydration, and educating parents on the appropriate use, dosing, and safe storage of antipyretics. To promote child safety, pediatricians should advocate for a limited number of formulations of acetaminophen and ibuprofen and for clear labeling of dosing instructions and an included dosing device for antipyretic products.
Further, the study suggests that it is not a good idea to wake a child just to treat them with ibuprofen or acetaminophen.
"Fever" accounts for upwards of one-third of all trips to the pediatrician. Yet, parents may be over reacting to these symptoms and may be over treating their children (and are subject to "fever phobia"). The study asserts that the main goal in treating a fever is simply to make the child more comfortable, not to lower temperature.
The full report can be found here:
http://bit.ly/foAUE1
Excerpt:
SUMMARY
Appropriate counseling on the management of fever begins by helping parents understand that fever, in and of itself, is not known to endanger a generally healthy child. In contrast, fever may actually be of benefit; thus, the real goal of antipyretic therapy is not simply to normalize body temperature but to improve the overall comfort and well-being of the child. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen, when used in appropriate doses, are generally regarded as safe and effective agents in most clinical situations. However, as with all drugs, they should be used judiciously to minimize the risk of adverse drug effects and toxicity. Combination therapy with acetaminophen and ibuprofen may place infants and children at increased risk because of dosing errors and adverse outcomes, and these potential risks must be carefully considered. When counseling a family on the management of fever in a child, pediatricians and other health care providers should minimize fever phobia and emphasize that antipyretic use does not prevent febrile seizures. Pediatricians should focus instead on monitoring for signs/symptoms of serious illness, improving the child's comfort by maintaining hydration, and educating parents on the appropriate use, dosing, and safe storage of antipyretics. To promote child safety, pediatricians should advocate for a limited number of formulations of acetaminophen and ibuprofen and for clear labeling of dosing instructions and an included dosing device for antipyretic products.
China Vaccine Regulators Are Now WHO Certified
China's national regulatory authority, the "State Food and Drug Administration" (SFDA), has been found to meet requirements for a functional vaccine regulatory system, per published indicators. According to a report by the World Health Organization, Chinese vaccine manufacturers will now be eligible for prequalification of specific products. The addition of Chinese vaccines to the world market is expected to "have a significant, beneficial impact on global supply of vaccines of assured quality."
http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_regulation/nra_china_functional/en/
Excerpts from the report:
"A WHO-led team concluded today, at the end of a comprehensive review by experts from six countries, that the national regulatory authority of China, the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), and affiliated institutions, meet WHO published indicators for a functional vaccine regulatory system."
"Effective regulatory oversight of vaccines is essential since vaccines are used on a population-wide basis, and are usually given to healthy infants. Furthermore, vaccines are produced in only a small number of countries and often exported from the country of manufacture to many countries. Countries importing vaccines need to be confident that the national regulatory authority in the country of origin is competent in its oversight. WHO has established benchmarks that define international expectations for a functional vaccine regulatory system. WHO also conducts regular external audits of national regulatory authorities, particularly in vaccine-producing countries, to ensure that the regulatory systems meet the necessary standards, and that the system is maintained and functions in a sustainable way."
"With a regulatory system for vaccines documented to comply with international standards, vaccine manufacturers in China are now eligible to apply for Prequalification of specific products. WHO prequalification, which is a guarantee that a specific vaccine meets international standards of quality, safety and efficacy, is a prerequisite for manufacturers to supply to countries through United Nations procuring agencies. Each application for prequalification of a specific product is independently evaluated by WHO. It is expected that vaccines from China could be prequalified 1-2 years from now. The eventual ability of United Nations procuring agencies to source vaccines from Chinese manufacturers is expected to have a significant, beneficial impact on global supply of vaccines of assured quality."
http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_regulation/nra_china_functional/en/
Excerpts from the report:
"A WHO-led team concluded today, at the end of a comprehensive review by experts from six countries, that the national regulatory authority of China, the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), and affiliated institutions, meet WHO published indicators for a functional vaccine regulatory system."
"Effective regulatory oversight of vaccines is essential since vaccines are used on a population-wide basis, and are usually given to healthy infants. Furthermore, vaccines are produced in only a small number of countries and often exported from the country of manufacture to many countries. Countries importing vaccines need to be confident that the national regulatory authority in the country of origin is competent in its oversight. WHO has established benchmarks that define international expectations for a functional vaccine regulatory system. WHO also conducts regular external audits of national regulatory authorities, particularly in vaccine-producing countries, to ensure that the regulatory systems meet the necessary standards, and that the system is maintained and functions in a sustainable way."
"With a regulatory system for vaccines documented to comply with international standards, vaccine manufacturers in China are now eligible to apply for Prequalification of specific products. WHO prequalification, which is a guarantee that a specific vaccine meets international standards of quality, safety and efficacy, is a prerequisite for manufacturers to supply to countries through United Nations procuring agencies. Each application for prequalification of a specific product is independently evaluated by WHO. It is expected that vaccines from China could be prequalified 1-2 years from now. The eventual ability of United Nations procuring agencies to source vaccines from Chinese manufacturers is expected to have a significant, beneficial impact on global supply of vaccines of assured quality."
Monday, February 28, 2011
Should you get the flu shot? Probably not
There are good and valid reasons to get the annual seasonal flu shot, especially if you have an underlying medical condition such as asthma, heart disease, or a weakened immune system.
But, for the vast majority of healthy people (under the age of 65), there are also good and valid reasons NOT to get the annual influenza shot. Although some are distrustful of all vaccines, there are specific reasons to be wary of the influenza vaccine;
these include:
• Complications related to the flu shot. Many people report feeling sick after getting the flu shot, and children have been reported to suffer from febrile seizures. Reports of narcolepsy and adverse reactions to the flu shot appear to be on the rise.
• The flu shot is not entirely effective. You can still get the flu, even if you are vaccinated. So, while you incur the risks for adverse side effects you may still get the flu.
* The effectiveness of the anti-flu treatment Tamiflu has been called into question, and it appears that it does not lessen hospital stays. Further it appears some of the results of the trials were intentionally withheld when they painted a picture of doing exactly the opposite of the intended affect. There was one trial that seemed to suggest that Tamiflu lessened the ability of the immune system to fight influenza.
• Lack of legal recourse (civil) especially in the US if you are harmed by the flu shot. A US Supreme Court decision (BRUESEWITZ et al. v . WYETH LLC) sided with vaccine makers in a case involving a Pennsylvania girl who was denied a claim in vaccine court and was not allowed for file a claim in civil court. The fact is that if you lose your case in “vaccine court” you will have no further legal recourse. Some, including Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, argue that there are now no serious consequences for vaccine manufacturers if they produce a faulty product and that no other industry in America has such a comprehensive “get out of jail free” card.
• Most healthy people do not require hospitalization for the flu, even though suffering from the flu is uncomfortable.
• Washing your hands frequently, eating healthy, and getting plenty of sleep are very good ways to avoid getting the flu.
• The majority of health care providers (approximately 60%) choose NOT to get the flu shot every year. Even the risk of termination of their job is not great enough of a threat to convince them to risk getting the flu shot. [ Edit note: in 2012, the numbers have improved. One study shows that 60% + of health care providers are now getting the flu shot. But, this improvement has happened after employers threatened termination for non-compliance. The fact that so many health care providers are still leery of getting the flu shot speaks volumes. ]
• Recommendations for getting the flu shot vary widely from country to country. For example, most countries in Europe only recommend those aged 65 or over get the flu shot (with no underlying medical condition).
• The odds of dying from the flu are minuscule. The CDC’s numbers for mortality are suspect, at best. Influenza is grouped with pneumonia statistics, thus blurring any meaningful comparisons. But, even the CDC admits that most deaths occur among the elderly population, yet still insist that everyone (over 6 months of age) get the flu shot. The is especially at odds with reality, given that pediatric deaths associated with flu are now at historically low levels.
• Valid reasons to mistrust government and pharmaceutical pronouncements, including the influence of money in the political process. The recent case of trial tests of the antibiotic drug “Trovan” on African children, allegedly without parental consent, illustrates problems with the industry. Recent news reports about past horrors amplify the point. *
• Valid reasons to mistrust media outlets. Many newspapers, web sites, and television news programs are beholden to vast pharmaceutical advertising dollars. Anyone who questions the necessity of flu shots is instantly branded a kook or “dangerous.” An outlet that does not follow the party line risks losing advertising dollars to other programs that are not so choosy about what they publish.
• Not all flu shot formulas are the same. Risks vary by formula. The nasal flu shot, Flumist, contains a live, albeit weakened, influenza virus.
So, we will continue to remain skeptical of the CDC's blanket recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot.
As with all medical decisions, you should ask your doctor if you should get the flu shot. But, also ask him/her if they have gotten the flu shot themselves.
Hopefully they will be honest with you.
See also: Flu Shots: Panacea or Propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
*AP IMPACT: Past medical testing on humans revealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022700988.html
But, for the vast majority of healthy people (under the age of 65), there are also good and valid reasons NOT to get the annual influenza shot. Although some are distrustful of all vaccines, there are specific reasons to be wary of the influenza vaccine;
these include:
• Complications related to the flu shot. Many people report feeling sick after getting the flu shot, and children have been reported to suffer from febrile seizures. Reports of narcolepsy and adverse reactions to the flu shot appear to be on the rise.
• The flu shot is not entirely effective. You can still get the flu, even if you are vaccinated. So, while you incur the risks for adverse side effects you may still get the flu.
* The effectiveness of the anti-flu treatment Tamiflu has been called into question, and it appears that it does not lessen hospital stays. Further it appears some of the results of the trials were intentionally withheld when they painted a picture of doing exactly the opposite of the intended affect. There was one trial that seemed to suggest that Tamiflu lessened the ability of the immune system to fight influenza.
• Lack of legal recourse (civil) especially in the US if you are harmed by the flu shot. A US Supreme Court decision (BRUESEWITZ et al. v . WYETH LLC) sided with vaccine makers in a case involving a Pennsylvania girl who was denied a claim in vaccine court and was not allowed for file a claim in civil court. The fact is that if you lose your case in “vaccine court” you will have no further legal recourse. Some, including Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, argue that there are now no serious consequences for vaccine manufacturers if they produce a faulty product and that no other industry in America has such a comprehensive “get out of jail free” card.
• Most healthy people do not require hospitalization for the flu, even though suffering from the flu is uncomfortable.
• Washing your hands frequently, eating healthy, and getting plenty of sleep are very good ways to avoid getting the flu.
• The majority of health care providers (approximately 60%) choose NOT to get the flu shot every year. Even the risk of termination of their job is not great enough of a threat to convince them to risk getting the flu shot. [ Edit note: in 2012, the numbers have improved. One study shows that 60% + of health care providers are now getting the flu shot. But, this improvement has happened after employers threatened termination for non-compliance. The fact that so many health care providers are still leery of getting the flu shot speaks volumes. ]
• Recommendations for getting the flu shot vary widely from country to country. For example, most countries in Europe only recommend those aged 65 or over get the flu shot (with no underlying medical condition).
• The odds of dying from the flu are minuscule. The CDC’s numbers for mortality are suspect, at best. Influenza is grouped with pneumonia statistics, thus blurring any meaningful comparisons. But, even the CDC admits that most deaths occur among the elderly population, yet still insist that everyone (over 6 months of age) get the flu shot. The is especially at odds with reality, given that pediatric deaths associated with flu are now at historically low levels.
• Valid reasons to mistrust government and pharmaceutical pronouncements, including the influence of money in the political process. The recent case of trial tests of the antibiotic drug “Trovan” on African children, allegedly without parental consent, illustrates problems with the industry. Recent news reports about past horrors amplify the point. *
• Valid reasons to mistrust media outlets. Many newspapers, web sites, and television news programs are beholden to vast pharmaceutical advertising dollars. Anyone who questions the necessity of flu shots is instantly branded a kook or “dangerous.” An outlet that does not follow the party line risks losing advertising dollars to other programs that are not so choosy about what they publish.
• Not all flu shot formulas are the same. Risks vary by formula. The nasal flu shot, Flumist, contains a live, albeit weakened, influenza virus.
So, we will continue to remain skeptical of the CDC's blanket recommendation that everyone over the age of 6 months get the flu shot.
As with all medical decisions, you should ask your doctor if you should get the flu shot. But, also ask him/her if they have gotten the flu shot themselves.
Hopefully they will be honest with you.
See also: Flu Shots: Panacea or Propaganda? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/flu-shots-panacea-or-prop_b_831696.html
*AP IMPACT: Past medical testing on humans revealed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/27/AR2011022700988.html
Friday, February 25, 2011
Flu Vaccine Recommendations for UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy
Flu Vaccine Recommendations for UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy
Unlike the US, where the CDC recommends that nearly everyone over 6 months of age get the annual seasonal influenza shot, many other countries only recommend the shot (or, "the jab" as it is known in the UK) for person's aged 60 or older. In fact, most reserve the recommendation for people over 65 (with no underlying medical condition).
The US stands in sharp contrast, where the recommendation is that "everyone 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine each year starting with the 2010-2011 influenza season."
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100224.htm
By contrast, the Europeans suggest that only those with underlying medical conditions (and not as many as in the US) and those over 65 get the shot.
It is not clear what the leading driver is for this disparity. It could be a number of factors, including; influence of the large pharmaceutical companies, legal structures (in the US vaccine makers shielded from civil liability), structural and political reasons, or, perhaps just hysteria.
Source: www.eurosurveillance.org
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V15N44/MERECKIENE_Tab1.jpg
Unlike the US, where the CDC recommends that nearly everyone over 6 months of age get the annual seasonal influenza shot, many other countries only recommend the shot (or, "the jab" as it is known in the UK) for person's aged 60 or older. In fact, most reserve the recommendation for people over 65 (with no underlying medical condition).
The US stands in sharp contrast, where the recommendation is that "everyone 6 months and older should get a flu vaccine each year starting with the 2010-2011 influenza season."
http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100224.htm
By contrast, the Europeans suggest that only those with underlying medical conditions (and not as many as in the US) and those over 65 get the shot.
It is not clear what the leading driver is for this disparity. It could be a number of factors, including; influence of the large pharmaceutical companies, legal structures (in the US vaccine makers shielded from civil liability), structural and political reasons, or, perhaps just hysteria.
Source: www.eurosurveillance.org
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V15N44/MERECKIENE_Tab1.jpg
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Vaccine makers shielded from suits says Supreme Court
In a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court today ruled that vaccine makers cannot be sued outside of a specially designated "vaccine court," created by National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
The justices apparently struggled with some ambiguities in the law, with Justice Scalia writing that the "lack of guidance for design defects [in the drugs] combined with the extensive guidance for the grounds of liability specifically mentioned in the act strongly suggests that design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability."
However, Justice Sotomayer (with Justice Ginsburg) dissented, saying that
to "pre-empt all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers for covered vaccines, the majority’s decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements.
This concern is especially acute with respect to vaccines that have already been released and marketed to the public. Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins. Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history remotely suggests that Congress intended that result."
Links to the Supreme Court decision can be found: here.
The ruling was in response to a case brought by the Bruesewitz family, against Wyeth (now owned by Pfizer, Inc), in which the Breusewitz's claimed that their infant daughter was harmed by toxins in a booster shot.
The justices apparently struggled with some ambiguities in the law, with Justice Scalia writing that the "lack of guidance for design defects [in the drugs] combined with the extensive guidance for the grounds of liability specifically mentioned in the act strongly suggests that design defects were not mentioned because they are not a basis for liability."
However, Justice Sotomayer (with Justice Ginsburg) dissented, saying that
to "pre-empt all design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers for covered vaccines, the majority’s decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one—neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries—ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements.
This concern is especially acute with respect to vaccines that have already been released and marketed to the public. Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins. Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history remotely suggests that Congress intended that result."
Links to the Supreme Court decision can be found: here.
The ruling was in response to a case brought by the Bruesewitz family, against Wyeth (now owned by Pfizer, Inc), in which the Breusewitz's claimed that their infant daughter was harmed by toxins in a booster shot.
Friday, February 18, 2011
About Pfizer Inc (NYSE: PFE)
Pfizer, Inc (NYSE: PFE)
About Pfizer, Inc*
235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017
(212) 733-2323
Reveune: $67.8 billion (2010)
I.R.S. Employer Identification Number:
13-5315170
Pfizer Inc. (which may be referred to as Pfizer, the Company, we, us or our) is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. We apply science and our global resources to improve health and well-being at every stage of life. We strive to set the standard for quality, safety and value in the discovery, development and manufacture of medicines for people and animals. Our diversified global health care portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world’s best-known consumer health care products. Every day, we work across developed and emerging markets to advance wellness, prevention, treatments and cures that challenge the most feared diseases of our time. Consistent with our responsibility as the world’s leading biopharmaceutical company, we also collaborate with other biopharmaceutical companies, health care providers, governments and local communities to support and expand access to reliable, affordable health care around the world.
The Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on June 2, 1942.
On October 15, 2009, we completed our acquisition of Wyeth. The acquisition was a cash-and-stock transaction valued, based on the closing market price of Pfizer’s common stock on the acquisition date, at $50.40 per share of Wyeth common stock, or a total of approximately $68 billion.
In response to the challenging operating environment, we have taken many steps to strengthen our Company and better position ourselves for the future. The most important of these steps was the acquisition of Wyeth, which has transformed us into a more diversified health care company, with product offerings in human and animal health, including vaccines, biologics, small molecules and nutrition across developed and emerging markets. We believe that our acquisition of Wyeth meaningfully advances, in a single transaction, each of the strategic priorities that we have identified and pursued over the last two years, including:
• Enhancing the in-line and patent-protected pipeline portfolio in key “invest to win” areas of
research where there exist significant unmet medical needs and significant opportunities for innovation and market leadership, such as oncology, pain, inflammation, Alzheimer’s disease, psychoses and diabetes as well as the critical technologies of vaccines and biologics;
• Becoming a top-tier player in biotherapeutics by 2015;
• Accelerating growth in emerging markets;
• Creating new opportunities for established products;
• Investing in complementary businesses; and
• Creating a lower, more flexible cost base for the combined company.
*Source: Form 10-K
. . . . .
Pfizer and plaintiffs settle lawsuits
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/02/pfizer-inc-nyse-pfe-and-plaintiffs.html
200 Largest Pharmaceutical Companies in the World
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/02/flucrazy-200-200-largest-pharmaceutical.html
About Pfizer, Inc*
235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017
(212) 733-2323
Reveune: $67.8 billion (2010)
I.R.S. Employer Identification Number:
13-5315170
Pfizer Inc. (which may be referred to as Pfizer, the Company, we, us or our) is a research-based, global biopharmaceutical company. We apply science and our global resources to improve health and well-being at every stage of life. We strive to set the standard for quality, safety and value in the discovery, development and manufacture of medicines for people and animals. Our diversified global health care portfolio includes human and animal biologic and small molecule medicines and vaccines, as well as nutritional products and many of the world’s best-known consumer health care products. Every day, we work across developed and emerging markets to advance wellness, prevention, treatments and cures that challenge the most feared diseases of our time. Consistent with our responsibility as the world’s leading biopharmaceutical company, we also collaborate with other biopharmaceutical companies, health care providers, governments and local communities to support and expand access to reliable, affordable health care around the world.
The Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on June 2, 1942.
On October 15, 2009, we completed our acquisition of Wyeth. The acquisition was a cash-and-stock transaction valued, based on the closing market price of Pfizer’s common stock on the acquisition date, at $50.40 per share of Wyeth common stock, or a total of approximately $68 billion.
In response to the challenging operating environment, we have taken many steps to strengthen our Company and better position ourselves for the future. The most important of these steps was the acquisition of Wyeth, which has transformed us into a more diversified health care company, with product offerings in human and animal health, including vaccines, biologics, small molecules and nutrition across developed and emerging markets. We believe that our acquisition of Wyeth meaningfully advances, in a single transaction, each of the strategic priorities that we have identified and pursued over the last two years, including:
• Enhancing the in-line and patent-protected pipeline portfolio in key “invest to win” areas of
research where there exist significant unmet medical needs and significant opportunities for innovation and market leadership, such as oncology, pain, inflammation, Alzheimer’s disease, psychoses and diabetes as well as the critical technologies of vaccines and biologics;
• Becoming a top-tier player in biotherapeutics by 2015;
• Accelerating growth in emerging markets;
• Creating new opportunities for established products;
• Investing in complementary businesses; and
• Creating a lower, more flexible cost base for the combined company.
*Source: Form 10-K
. . . . .
Pfizer and plaintiffs settle lawsuits
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/02/pfizer-inc-nyse-pfe-and-plaintiffs.html
200 Largest Pharmaceutical Companies in the World
http://flucrazy.blogspot.com/2011/02/flucrazy-200-200-largest-pharmaceutical.html
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Chimerix Awarded BARDA Contract for Development of Antiviral CMX001 Countermeasure Against Smallpox
Chimerix Awarded BARDA Contract for Development of Antiviral CMX001 Countermeasure Against Smallpox
According to the announcement, Chimerix, Inc, has been awarded a contract by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for advanced development of its antiviral drug candidate, CMX001, as a medical countermeasure in the event of a smallpox release.
Excerpt:
"RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C., Feb. 16, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --
Chimerix, Inc., a pharmaceutical company developing orally available antiviral therapeutics, today announced that it has been awarded a contract by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for the advanced development of Chimerix's broad spectrum antiviral drug candidate, CMX001, as a medical countermeasure in the event of a smallpox release.
CMX001 is a potential dual-use therapeutic with evidence of antiviral activity against all five families of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) viruses that cause morbidity and mortality in humans, including smallpox. Under the terms of the BARDA contract, Chimerix will receive committed funding of $24.8 million during the first year with subsequent option periods that, if completed, would bring the total contract value to $81.1 million.
The funding from BARDA builds upon the $37 million Chimerix previously received from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for development of CMX001 for smallpox, in addition to substantial private investment from top-tier venture capital firms for the development of CMX001 as a treatment for other life-threatening infections such as adenovirus and cytomegalovirus.
As part of progressing the clinical and non-clinical development of CMX001 for the smallpox indication, the BARDA contract will also support expanded human safety trials and the recently initiated CMX001-350 multicenter, open-label clinical study of CMX001 for the treatment of twelve life-threatening or serious conditions caused by dsDNA viruses. This represents Chimerix's first contract with BARDA and will position CMX001 for possible procurement as a medical countermeasure for the Strategic National Stockpile."
Read More at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/chimerix-awarded-barda-contract-for-advanced-development-of-broad-spectrum-antiviral-cmx001-as-medical-countermeasure-against-smallpox-116318154.html
According to the announcement, Chimerix, Inc, has been awarded a contract by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for advanced development of its antiviral drug candidate, CMX001, as a medical countermeasure in the event of a smallpox release.
Excerpt:
"RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C., Feb. 16, 2011 /PRNewswire/ --
Chimerix, Inc., a pharmaceutical company developing orally available antiviral therapeutics, today announced that it has been awarded a contract by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for the advanced development of Chimerix's broad spectrum antiviral drug candidate, CMX001, as a medical countermeasure in the event of a smallpox release.
CMX001 is a potential dual-use therapeutic with evidence of antiviral activity against all five families of double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) viruses that cause morbidity and mortality in humans, including smallpox. Under the terms of the BARDA contract, Chimerix will receive committed funding of $24.8 million during the first year with subsequent option periods that, if completed, would bring the total contract value to $81.1 million.
The funding from BARDA builds upon the $37 million Chimerix previously received from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for development of CMX001 for smallpox, in addition to substantial private investment from top-tier venture capital firms for the development of CMX001 as a treatment for other life-threatening infections such as adenovirus and cytomegalovirus.
As part of progressing the clinical and non-clinical development of CMX001 for the smallpox indication, the BARDA contract will also support expanded human safety trials and the recently initiated CMX001-350 multicenter, open-label clinical study of CMX001 for the treatment of twelve life-threatening or serious conditions caused by dsDNA viruses. This represents Chimerix's first contract with BARDA and will position CMX001 for possible procurement as a medical countermeasure for the Strategic National Stockpile."
Read More at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/chimerix-awarded-barda-contract-for-advanced-development-of-broad-spectrum-antiviral-cmx001-as-medical-countermeasure-against-smallpox-116318154.html
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Whistle Blowers – the new bounty hunters. How 4 men got rich exposing Pharma fraud
Claims processing company Ven-A-Care discovers fraud, reports the drug companies, and reaps millions.
As reported by CNBC, “the company began in the late 1980s as a home drug-infusion business. And as they processed drug claims with the government, they found something odd, says Patrick Burns, a spokesman for the non-profit group Taxpayers Against Fraud, who calls the founders of Ven-A-Care “American heroes.”
"What they discovered was that they were buying drugs for a buck and Uncle Sam was paying $5 for 'em,” Burns says. “Five-hundred percent markups, 1,000 percent markups, 2,000 percent markups that Uncle Sam was paying.”
Armed with that information, Ven-A-Care filed whistleblower suits against drug companies. And since 2001, the four men have forced drug companies to pay the federal government more than $1.3 billion dollars. Of that, the Ven-A-Care founders, known as “relators” in whistleblower jargon, got to keep $280 million dollars for themselves.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41491563?par=yahoo
As reported by CNBC, “the company began in the late 1980s as a home drug-infusion business. And as they processed drug claims with the government, they found something odd, says Patrick Burns, a spokesman for the non-profit group Taxpayers Against Fraud, who calls the founders of Ven-A-Care “American heroes.”
"What they discovered was that they were buying drugs for a buck and Uncle Sam was paying $5 for 'em,” Burns says. “Five-hundred percent markups, 1,000 percent markups, 2,000 percent markups that Uncle Sam was paying.”
Armed with that information, Ven-A-Care filed whistleblower suits against drug companies. And since 2001, the four men have forced drug companies to pay the federal government more than $1.3 billion dollars. Of that, the Ven-A-Care founders, known as “relators” in whistleblower jargon, got to keep $280 million dollars for themselves.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41491563?par=yahoo
Report says Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) will pay approx $ 330 million to settle claims related to the Prempro menopause drug.
A report by Bloomberg says Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) will pay approximately $ 330 million to settle claims related to the Prempro menopause drug.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-27/pfizer-settles-arkansas-prempro-case-before-retrial-over-punitive-damages.html
"The drugmaker faced more than 10,000 claims that its menopause drugs caused breast cancer prior the settlements, which were reached during the past five months, the people said. That number included more than 8,000 cases consolidated in federal court in Arkansas and other cases in state courts in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Minnesota."
Pfizer is facing numerous suits claiming that its hormone replacement therapy caused breast cancer.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-27/pfizer-settles-arkansas-prempro-case-before-retrial-over-punitive-damages.html
"The drugmaker faced more than 10,000 claims that its menopause drugs caused breast cancer prior the settlements, which were reached during the past five months, the people said. That number included more than 8,000 cases consolidated in federal court in Arkansas and other cases in state courts in Pennsylvania, Nevada and Minnesota."
Pfizer is facing numerous suits claiming that its hormone replacement therapy caused breast cancer.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Reuters reports development of intravenous flu treatment
GlaxoSmithKline begins a phase III study of its new intravenous flu treatment ("zanamivir") that they hope will compete with competitor pill, Tamiflu.
This is intended to treat the sickest patients, who may not have responded to other treatments.
The pharmaceutical giant is hoping to take market share away from rival Roche.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70I1RU20110119
This is intended to treat the sickest patients, who may not have responded to other treatments.
The pharmaceutical giant is hoping to take market share away from rival Roche.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70I1RU20110119
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Is the CDC in bed with big Pharma?
Ever since Wikileaks revealed that Big Pharma was caught spying on the World Health Organization (see: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Big_Pharma_caught_spying_on_the_WHO), I have been pondering the question of the pharmaceutical industry's influence on the US Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). It has certainly been documented that various employee's have either received funding from the industry, or were previously employed by a pharmaceutical company. (*1) But, are recommendations for public health policies influenced by this money?
In contrast to most countries in the world, it is surprising that the US (via the CDC), , recommends that just about every citizen get the flu vaccine. The US is the only country that recommends people aged 50-60 get the flu shot. What does the US know that the rest of the civilized world does not? Perhaps it is how to get people who don't need the shot, to get it anyhow.
Putting aside Swine Flu, which does appear to be a threat to young children (and pregnant women), the Common Seasonal Flu can be tolerated by most adults, and is rarely fatal. And, historically, the fatality numbers (*2) provided by the CDC have been suspect at best (bundling Flu and pneumonia together).
1. http://www.lookgreat-loseweight-savemoney.com/swine-flu-hoax.html
2. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/27/science/la-sci-flu-deaths-20100827
In contrast to most countries in the world, it is surprising that the US (via the CDC), , recommends that just about every citizen get the flu vaccine. The US is the only country that recommends people aged 50-60 get the flu shot. What does the US know that the rest of the civilized world does not? Perhaps it is how to get people who don't need the shot, to get it anyhow.
Putting aside Swine Flu, which does appear to be a threat to young children (and pregnant women), the Common Seasonal Flu can be tolerated by most adults, and is rarely fatal. And, historically, the fatality numbers (*2) provided by the CDC have been suspect at best (bundling Flu and pneumonia together).
1. http://www.lookgreat-loseweight-savemoney.com/swine-flu-hoax.html
2. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/27/science/la-sci-flu-deaths-20100827
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)