NOT for Spitzer to decide if Paxil was good/bad for teenagers - the case was about disclosure of information

extract from - http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/spitzer.php


Here’s another story. We brought a case against GlaxoSmithKline, which was at the time marketing Paxil—an anti-depressant—as effective for teenagers. It had been approved for other purposes, but this was off-label marketing. We found that a significant number of the clinical tests they had done proved something directly at odds with their claims. It was not for me as attorney general to determine whether this drug was bad or good for teenagers, but to insist on full disclosure of critically relevant information so that doctors and journals could make that determination.




When we sued Glaxo, they thought we wanted money. But we only wanted them to change the way they acted. We asked them to create a Web site for the clinical testing data so that doctors and journals could make informed judgments. They agreed. The settlement became part of a longer process, a move toward substantially more disclosure when it comes to drugs and testing data.



From Glaxo’s perspective, the more data they withheld, the better it was for them. They could persuade more people to use Paxil. So, again: only government can ensure integrity, transparency, and fair dealing.