(article dated November 2012)
"Wont get fooled again? GlaxoSmithKline and access to data
Meanwhile GlaxoSmithKline have been winning kudos after their CEO Andrew Witty promised to make the data from their clinical trials available. This offer has been welcomed glowingly by the BMJ, who civilly steered clear of mentioning the fraud action for withholding trial data that led to a $3 Billion fine for GSK.
Over a decade ago before merging with SmithKline, Glaxo-Wellcome made a comparable offer of transparency. Perhaps good Glaxo has got the upperhand on the more worldly SmithKline lawyers sometimes put GSKs aberrations down to legacy issues. But there are wrinkles this is not unfettered access. A panel set up by the company will vet applications to access the data. The BMJ slid over this.
Maybe good Glaxo has got the upper hand but perhaps the BMJ should have resisted the temptation to gush. Even if they were just being civil, the gush factor will lead many who dont understand the way the English read between lines to think that industry have undergone a Damascene conversion. GSKs gift is a far more effective form of resistance than Roches..."
The 'Damascene conversion' came only a few months after this:
"Glaxo in $3 Billion Settlement
Updated July 3, 2012 12:01 a.m. ET
Under the deal, which requires court approval, Glaxo will plead guilty to criminal charges involving three drugsthe antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and the diabetes drug Avandia..."
New, improved GSK? Or just cleverer (and more experienced) than most in turning a reputation of criminality and disregard for the safety of children and adults around in the hope that we are easily taken in?
In the meantime, what have they done to seek out and help damaged children from the hidden negative study 329 (paroxetine) or to help bereaved parents of children lost in or after those trials?
And what steps have they taken to protect children?
None at all as far as I can tell.