The federal government recently reached an agreement with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline in which the drug maker will plead guilty to misdemeanor fraud charges and pay $3 billion in civil damages for taking part in some shady reporting and marketing practices over an extended period of time. Among the charges, the government said that Glaxo failed to report drug-safety information to the FDA, and that it threw money and expensive vacation packages at doctors to promote their drugs for uses outside what the FDA had approved. One of the doctors listed in the complaint is Celebrity Rehab and Loveline host Dr. Drew, who went on Loveline and talked up the off-label positive sexual effects of the Glaxo anti-depressant Wellbutrin two months after receiving $275,000 from the company for “services for Wellbutrin.” Ruh roh.
Dr. Drew responded to the claims through a publicist, saying that his relationship with GlaxoSmithKline was part of an educational grant to research depression and intimacy, and that his comments were “consistent with his clinical experience,” but even if that is all true this still stinks like old seafood. All you have to do is preface your comments with, “Full disclosure, I have a financially beneficial relationship with the makers of this drug,” and then you can say whatever you want. I mean, sure, you might look like a totally corrupt hack who sold out his morals for a fat paycheck, but at least you won’t look like a totally corrupt hack who sold out his morals for a fat paycheck and is hiding the fact that he is a totally corrupt hack who sold out his morals for a fat paycheck. The lesser of two totally corrupt evils, if you will.
Between the recent uproar over Adam Carolla’s comments about women in comedy, and now this news about Dr. Drew, it’s not been a particularly great last few weeks for people associated with Loveline. If I’m Diane Farr, I’m keeping my head down until 2013.
Image via Shutterstock
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/51/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/goat-150x150.jpg)
This “Dr.” makes my teeth itch. I used to think he was just another pseudo celebrity out to maximize his media exposure. However, now I think he’s just another pseudo celebrity out to maximize his media exposure and his paychecks.
This is news that makes me happy. Not specifically that Dr. Drew is gettin’ punished – I only recognized him in that banner picture because I know he’s not Steve-O – but the GOVMINT! actually going after pharma companies for this type of thing is quite good.
I tried to watch his show once on Headline News or whatever monster that channel has morphed into, and it felt like a poorly done knockoff of a Nancy Grace screetch-fest. Granted it was during the Casey Anthony debacle but since that day I’ve lost any an all respect for him.
I think perhaps if this had come out several years ago I’d be more upset, but today I couldn’t care less about what may or may not happen to Dr. Drew.
I was a pharmaceutical sales rep in a past life. Industry is corrupt as fuck. Choose your doctors carefully, kids. [deadspin.com]
I was going to say, b-b-but this is how the American medical system works…
This makes me GLORIOUSLY happy. “Doctor” Drew is a self righteous, exploitative hack who gets paid to give armchair diagnosis’ to US Weekly every time a celebrity fucks up and cares about nothing more than his own fame. He’s like the PETA of substance abuse counselors, only more insidious. I hope the feds decide to “make an example” out of him and send him to federal pound me in the ass prison.
My thoughts exactly. He masquerades as someone genuinely concerned for patient’s welfare, then exploits it by hosting a reality TV show about it.
This guy needs to f*ck all the way off.
Substance abuse and addiction should not be trotted out for entertainment. Someone who professes to be a “doctor” should, if anything, have a higher moral ground and level of integrity to this point.
This is a concern, but the bigger problem is lobbyists in govt. They allow this stuff to happen by granting so much power to the Drug companies, and really all big business. Also at least most Dr’s have morals, yes drug A is more expensive than drug B, but both work and I get a cut/bonus. Politicians take money and chop down forests, allow pollution, sub standard food products. Maybe you wouldn’t even have to go to the Dr if all the bad stuff out there wasn’t allowed :S
This makes me happy because I want to see the pharm giants weakened once my plague that only affects stupid people is unleashed on mankind.
Syphon Filter or Jeffery Goines?
What’s wrong with being paid to share an opinion you believe? If Dr. Drew’s own clinical experience matched the drug company’s PR, then they both benefit.
Why does getting paid automatically make it true that you sold out your morals?
Because he didn’t disclose it, and because he was essentially an employee of the company who was plugging the drug for a use that was not cleared with the FDA.
The FDA is not the be all and end all arbiter of safe drug use. Off-label prescriptions are very common. Wellbutrin has already been proven safe and no one is accusing Dr. Drew of endangering his patients.
[www.independent.org]
Why are people putting doctor in quotes like he isn’t a doctor?
“Because”.
When you cease making decisions based on a person’s welfare or best interest and begin making them based on a drug company’s paycheck then you deserve “Dr.”
Or, when you cease making decisions based on a person’s welfare or best interest and begin making them based on a shitty basic cable network and/or gossip rag’s paycheck. Eat shit, “Dr.” Drew.
Second thought: Also, when you go by Dr. and then your first name you deserve to have doctor in quotes.
Seriously, I’d accept $275,000 and tell people that cyanide makes your dick 10-inches bigger.
Yeah, but what am I gonna do with an 11.5 inch dick?
Dammit, I’ve been doing it for free on my tumblr for years.
I keep reading the title of this article as Dr. Drew and the Dodo.
Off-label prescribing is very common. Nobody is saying Dr. Drew put people at risk or prescribed the drug in an unsafe manner.
There are dozens of anti-depressants on the market. Negative sexual side-effects are well known among those drugs. Drew believed that Wellbutrin had an unproven benefit that minimized those side-effects.
At worst, Drew was promising patients a benefit that didn’t exist. But nobody is really arguing that Wellbutrin doesn’t have that added benefit. The FDA is saying “you didn’t follow our hundred million dollar protocol to PROVE it has that benefit.”
I haven’t read the literature. It may be true that evidence and studies exist that support the claims about Wellbutrin’s side-effects on sex. The FDA isn’t so rigid about its standards because the FDA’s methods are the best. The FDA is rigid because it’s a giant, slow-moving government bureaucracy.
No, at worst Dr Drew was telling people to take a drug for a purpose that the drug had not approved of strictly because he was getting paid handsomely to do so without revealing to anyone that he was a paid shill for said drug company.
OK, two things:
1) You’re right. No one said he prescribed drugs in an unsafe manner. But, according to everything I’ve read, he still didn’t disclose that the makers of the drug he was advocating to hundreds of thousands of people on the radio were paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars. That’s an honesty problem, and even if it isn’t against the rules (I don’t know if it is), it’s unsettling that a dude dispensing medical and psychological advice largely to teenagers didn’t feel he needed to be up front about that.
2) Whether you agree with the FDA’s rules and procedures or not, they are the rules (as evidenced by the fact that breaking them just cost Glaxo $3 billion). Is the drug safe? Maybe. I don’t know. But I do know that ” yeah I knew the rules but they’re stupid because big government” isn’t a valid defense.
INteresting in both post and response. In relation to this and the “doctor” post, we use quotes because his “patients” are actually “listeners” or “viewers” and as such should have no expectation about the content they get in that setting.
The real question is who the hell expects legit health advice from a “doctor” that you’ve never even “seen”. You can’t legislate away stupidity.
1) Disclosure is good. I agree. But let’s avoid the implication that getting paid to do something you believe in is a bad thing. We had this debate in the 70s when the US switched an all-volunteer army. Back then it was seen as unseemly that we would hire “mercenaries” to fight our wars. Now nobody would question the patriotism of our volunteer soldiers, or balk when we offer them $10,000 reenlistment bonuses.
2) There are plenty of bad rules. Yes Glaxo will suffer the consequences. But that doesn’t mean I believe Glaxo did something wrong. Just something illegal.
Comparing it to being paid to be a soldier is a logical fallacy. Soldiers are soldiers: it is known that they receive money from the government – its their employers. That is not clear with doctors receiving money. Especially since they are often not listed as employees. This payment is often written off as “gifts” or other loopholes.
Secondly, in medical school we are taught that it is unethical and potentially illegal not to disclose potential conflicts of interest when giving an expert opinion. Regardless of whether there is an actual conflict of interest (and I highly suspect there is), failure to disclose it is itself wrong and is potential reason for suspension of license.
As someone that took wellbutrin, I can tell you I experienced quite the opposite. Kate Upton could’ve been butt naked telling me she wanted to blow me for no less than 4 hours, and it wouldnt even wiggle downstairs.