The MHRA and Glaxo’s solicitiors – just how close are they?

There’s some very interesting news at Seroxat Sufferers. Bob Fiddaman has been writing a series of posts about the identities of the expert witnesses that Glaxo are using to defend themselves against the High Court action.

It’s all a bit too cosy and I defy anyone to describe Glaxo’s experts as independent (which they should be under English law).

Anyway, last Friday afternoon Bob noticed some visits to his blog – at 16.37hrs the MHRA looked in and started read the posts about Glaxo’s ‘independent’ witnesses – then 41 seconds later, in what could only be a coincidence of the most massive proportions, you can see Glaxo’s solicitors Addleshaw Goddard, reading the exact same post.

I wonder what the chances are of that happening?

Millions to one, I’d imagine. Or maybe even billions to one….

Unless, of course, there is a connection between the two organisations and they share common interests.

I’d like Addleshaw Goddard to explain this one to me.

The posts are here, here, here and here.


One Response to “The MHRA and Glaxo’s solicitiors – just how close are they?”

  1. Anon Says:

    You really couldn’t make this stuff up! It seems that possibly, the MHRA and solicitors for GSK are in some kind of contact with each other? Surely this goes against the MHRA Motto of ‘ protecting public health’? and surely the MHRA are not more interested in the health of pharmaceutical industry profits over the welfare of patients and consumers? That would be unethical would it not? To be honest, nothing would surprise me anymore when it comes to drug (ir-) regulation and the industry it holds so close and dear to its interests. The MHRA seem to be nothing more than a smoke screen for the industry, and the revolving door that exists between the MHRA and Glaxo is yet another example of this kind of corruption. Isn’t it quite amazing how it is possible for an individual to work in the pharmaceutical industry for a few years then the medicines regulatory authority and then when a drug appears to be defective and dangerous they then can seek work as an ‘ independent witness’ in defence of the pharmaceutical industry? Surely it should be the other way round and they should be fighting for justice for the patients who have been harmed, and is not that what their motto claims?.. the amount of sinister dirt that’s been uncovered about the sordid seroxat scandal would be enough to keep BBC panorama busy for the next decade at least, come to think of it I wonder would they do another one? Surely it’s due 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: