Predator Profile: ASTRAZENECA

ASTRAZENECA

London-based pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca is the result of the 1999 merger of Britain’s Zeneca, a spinoff of the old Imperial Chemical Industries specializing in cancer medications, and Sweden’s Astra AB, which was best known for the ulcer and heartburn medication Prilosec. Since that deal, the combined company has been embroiled in numerous controversies over illegal marketing, product safety, anticompetitive behavior and tax avoidance.

ASTRAZENECA – RAP SHEET

Corp-Research.org – Predatory behavior and violations. Complete inventory.

General Profile Data on ASTRAZENECA

Website
Board of Directors
Company Profile
Financials

Sources of Interest

3 Drugmakers are Convicted in Reimbursement Overcharges

Pharmaceutical Giant AstraZeneca to Pay $520 Million for Off-label Drug Marketing

Astrazeneca Pleads Guilty to Healthcare Crime – Agrees to pay $355 Million

Corporate Research Project – ASTRAZENECA

Reading

Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients

Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients

The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It

Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine

“Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested on human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the trials are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two drug trials are positive—that is, if they show effectiveness without serious risk—the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative.

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors —largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome.” –

Marcia Angell, MD, author of “Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption”