Sunday, March 15, 2009

SEX, Drugs, Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage – but let’s not forget where you find the prior – there is always politics just a putrid sniff away


SEX, Drugs, Pharmaceutical Corporate Espionage – but let’s not forget where you find the prior – there is always politics just a putrid sniff away

This information barely touches the surface of how much influence Pharmaceutical Lobbyist and like interest have in our democratic process.

You always have to wonder who congress is really looking out for. Is it the people they represent as a governmental body, or is it the corporations that fund their election and reelection campaigns?
Examples and articles:

http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/11/lobbying-stalls-bill-aimed-at-cheaper-generics/

"AstraZeneca spent just under $2.4 million in lobbying expenses over the 12-month period ending July 1 on issues including the reverse payment bill."

http://mobile.politico.com/story.cfm?id=19925&cat=lobbyists

"With Democrats in charge of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, this really ought to be a no-brainer: Should GlaxoSmithKline put a Democrat or a Republican in charge of its Washington lobbying shop? But, as obvious as the answer may be, the drug maker is wrestling with the choice — and it sheds light on what seems to be an industry-wide partisan disconnect. The in-house lobbying shops of at least eight of the nation’s largest drug companies are still run by Republicans, even as the industry’s major trade association, PhRMA, is desperately trying to cozy up to Democrats who now control both the Congress and the White House. It’s a point that has not been lost on Democrats on Capitol Hill. “They’re dealing with us the same way they dealt with us when we were in the minority, and we’re not,” said a Democratic House health staffer. “We literally don’t know where all the different companies stand on anything, so we just don’t care.” Beyond Glaxo, health policy insiders cite as another example of the industry’s blind spot Abbott Laboratories’ decision to hire a Republican to help lead the lobbying shop instead of promoting a well-respected Democrat. An Abbott spokeswoman declined comment. Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Genzyme and AstraZeneca also have Republicans heading their Washington lobbying shops, according to industry insiders.
See also Second stimulus? Never heard of it! Obama tiptoes into battle on earmarks Some women wanted more from W.H.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” a Democratic Senate health care aide said. “At the end of the day it hurts them, not us.” "

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Year: 2008
Lobbyists working for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals:
Lobbying Firm Hired
Amount
Subsidiary (Lobbied For)
Lobbyist
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
$4,520,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Bloomquist, Christine
Buckley, Richard E
Draine, Michael
Izquierdo, Andres
Levinson, Kenneth I
Mott, Amanda Grashof
Olson, Richard Wayne
Palmer, Wayne
Rossin, Bradley Allen
Bryan Cave Strategies
$110,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Stewart, Jennifer
Capitol Counsel
$300,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Finley, Shannon
Franko, Sara
Gould, James C
Henry, Denise M
Hoak, Mike
Jones, David
Raffaelli, John D
Sullan, Richard
Foley Hoag LLP
$240,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Childress, Kelly
Kim, Paul
Littlefield, Nick
Mohler, David
Thornhill, Barrett
Guida Consulting Services
$200,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Guida, Alfonso V Jr
Johnson, Madigan et al
$190,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Jones, Jonathon
Murphy, Sheila J
Peck, Jeffrey J
Richardson, Sean J
Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti Inc
$208,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Bingel, Kelly
Brown, Jamie E
Castagnetti, David
Desmarais, Colette
Finley Pickering, Elise
Hoganson, Jonathan
Hudson, Karin
Mehlman, Bruce P
Rampy, Stacey
Rosen, Dean
Thomas, David R
Thompson, Allen
Vogel, Alex
Stuntz, Davis & Staffier
$60,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Davis, Randall E
Tarplin, Downs & Young
$240,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Downs, Raissa H
Easton, Michelle P
Fordjour, Isaac A
Tarplin, Linda E
Young, Jennfier B
Williams & Jensen
$220,000
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
DiJames, Jenny
Hart, Jack Steven
Hatcher, Christopher
Lynch, Karina
Olsen, George G
Oswald, Joel



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/washington/14lobby.html?ref=todayspaper

"The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation received $285,000 from Coca-Cola, $270,000 from the drug manufacturer AstraZeneca and $155,122 from Anheuser-Busch. In total, the Congressional Black Caucus and affiliated organizations got more than $1.5 million from companies.
AstraZeneca, which makes drugs like Crestor for high cholesterol and Nexium for heartburn, was also a top contributor to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, with a gift of $115,000.
Tony Jewell, a spokesman for AstraZeneca, said the contributions were a way of “building relationships and supporting worthwhile causes,” including efforts to improve the health of minorities and increase their participation in clinical trials."

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/11/03/State/Will_he_go_hard_after.shtml
"AstraZeneca fit that description, federal prosecutors say.
From 1993 to 1996, the London pharmaceutical company sent thousands of free samples of the prostate cancer drug Zolodex to doctors, knowing they would then fraudulently bill Medicare, Medicaid and other federally funded health care programs.

The company provided doctors free trips, educational grants and business assistance, according to the Justice Department, all to entice them to sell AstraZeneca's drugs, not their competitors'.

The company pleaded guilty in 2003 to a felony charge of health care fraud and agreed to pay $355 million in criminal and civil penalties.
That year, McCollum was hired by AstraZeneca as a Washington lobbyist.
Campbell making issue of situation
McCollum arranged a meeting between AstraZeneca and U.S. Rep. Mike Bilirakis, R-Tarpon Springs, related to legislation affecting an oral cancer drug AstraZeneca was hoping to sell, McCollum said Thursday.
That was the extent of the relationship, said McCollum. He lobbied for the company for less than a year, according to required federal filings, and his firm, Baker & Hostetler, was paid $60,000 for the work."
Posted by Stan at 11:38 AM
Labels: , ,

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Blog Archive

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Terms and conditions on the use of the contents of the “Is Something Not Quite Right with Stan - A Mental Health Blog” site are for informational and entertainment purposes only. Stan does not represent or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or reliability of the information or content (collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from this website.

Stan encourages you to make your own health care and legal decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care and/ or legal professional. The information posted here should not be considered medical advice and is not intended to replace consultation with a qualified medical professional if they exist. I do not answer specific medical questions.

Third party information is gathered from sources that Stan believes to be reliable. However, in no event shall Stan, or any third parties mentioned on this site be liable for any damages resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the content whether or not Stan is advised of the possibility of such damages.

Stan reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the displayed materials.

You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any Materials shall be at your sole risk.

Disclaimer of Liability

The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this web site and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this web site, or shall the website writer or any commenter’s be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the web site and/or any other web sites which are linked to this site.

Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a visitor on any information obtained via the web site; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.

ALL CONTENT ON THIS WEB SITE IS PROVIDED TO YOU ON AN "AS IS," "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Stan MAKES NO WARRANTY AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, CURRENCY, OR RELIABILITY OF ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.

In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Disclaimer of Endorsement - Reference to any products, services, hypertext link to the third parties or other information by trade name, trademark, supplier or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation by me. Nor is an endorsement by me is implied by such links. They are for convenience only, as an index in a public library.

Information Subject to Change - Any information on this web site may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, the information may change from time to time without any notice.

GENERAL INFORMATION - The information contained in this online site is presented and intended to provide a broad understanding and knowledge critical to psychiatric practices and humorous social interaction. The information should not be considered complete and should not be used in place of communication and consultation.

NO WARRANTIES “Is Something Not Quite Right With Stan - A Mental Health Blog” MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES THAT USE OF THE WEB SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ANY CONTENT YOU MAY OBTAIN FROM THE WEB SITE IS FREE OF VIRUSES.

This site is not a monologue of truth. It is a catalyst for public debate about medical conduct and for entertainment purposes. The reader is urged to confront officials to clarify issues mentioned herein. This site is designed strictly to provide information for critical, literary, academic, entertainment, and public usage. A qualified and trustworthy medical professional must be consulted regarding medical issues, treatments, diagnoses, etc.; if they exist in all actuality or truth.