Hacker News Reader

Comment by albatross13 | Hacker News Reader

None of the fines were for data falsification. Now we know not to trust albatross13.

> he thinks none of these lawsuits contained data falsification claims https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/pfizer

> he thinks these whistleblowers and the BMJ are liars https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Now we know not to trust lern_too_spel :)

Point me to a specific fine for data falsification. Unlike you, I have made no false claims here.

https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/violation-tracker...

follow up source: https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/o...

Quote: "Today’s settlement follows a two-year investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice into evidence that suggested Pfizer was using unreliable and unsubstantiated claims to promote Zyvox®, a relatively new and expensive antibiotic used for treating certain types of pneumonia and bacterial skin infections. Despite lacking evidence required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make such claims, Pfizer allegedly relied upon flawed clinical studies to substantiate assertions that Zyvox® was a superior to vancomycin, a comparatively inexpensive generic drug that holds the largest market share and has been available for more than 40 years. Pfizer’s sales representatives detailed and distributed thousands of copies of these faulty studies throughout Oregon to promote the sale of Zyvox®."

Very long and pleasant way of saying "they lied".

Not enough?

How about Chantix: 1. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news... 2. https://www.youhavealawyer.com/chantix/

Totaling almost 300 million in settlement payouts, they opted to do this AS A SETTLEMENT rather than let things drag out in court. Hmm... I wonder why. Couldn't be because they lied, hide, or downplayed information about Chantix's impact on people's mental health. This lands in their top 10 in terms of pay outs :)

And again, I will direct you to: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

While they haven't been fined for it yet (because their new contracts make it almost impossible :^) ), we have pretty substantial evidence Pfizer lied about a myriad of data points collected at at least one facility in regards to their covid19 injection trials.

But hey, at the end of the day I don't care what you believe beyond this post. You can defend the ultra corrupt big pharma company that bakes hundreds of millions in fines into its yearly operating budget.

Makes no difference to me, I'm healthy :)

> Very long and pleasant way of saying "they lied".

No, that's a very long way of saying that they haven't received FDA approval to make that claim. Nothing in there substantiates your claim that Pfizer falsified data in https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta....

> Couldn't be because they lied, hide, or downplayed information about Chantix's impact on people's mental health.

There are no allegations that they falsified data in this suit either.

That's three strikes — you're out! Would you like to step up to bat again to try to substantiate your claim that Pfizer has been fined for data falsification?

$10 billion - for any reason - is suspect. No one is fined for doing a great job.

the inference being here that companies paying fines at this level are completely above board and trustworthy?

That's a crazy inference. Nowhere did I imply completely above board. Doesn't rampantly falsify data, yes. Completely above board and trustworthy, no. There are vanishingly few organizations that are completely above board and trustworthy.

> Doesn't rampantly falsify data, yes. Completely above board and trustworthy, no.

the 2 are equivalent given context, no?

No. They were fined for doing things like recommending off-label use for their drugs, and they provided no data to support that off-label use. That isn't falsifying data, but that isn't acting trustworthy either.

Fined for being inscrupulous but are not unscrupulous... Ok I think I understand the faith.

You very clearly don't understand. I said they aren't completely trustworthy and I never implied they are.

Then why make the comparison if it's not needed. It is enough to state one thing without comparing it needlessly to another.

You're the one who needlessly and wrongly conflated not falsifying data with being completely above board and trustworthy. I've been trying to get through to you this whole thread that the two are not equivalent.

you only need to state don't feed the troll instead of feeding the troll

Reply on news.ycombinator.com