Shouldn't we call Apotex's pharmaceuticals "blood pharmaceuticals" and stake
holders' money "a BLOOD MONEY"? :)
SUBIECT TO FEDERAL LAW STIPULATIONS AS WELL AS CRIMINAL CODE STIPULATIONS.
Most if not ALL charity donations by Apotex are business investments.
By "donation" Apotex secures own interest /, influence paddling, tool of
So called "donations" are Tax deductible for Co. so Apotex does not pay to
the Government Tax amount equal to amount donated and General Public loses.
.... "identified in a litany of lawsuits - filed against competitors and by
...... "built $4.4-billion (US) fortune - Paul Waldie and Andy Hoffman
profile one of Canada's richest, and most mysterious, business icons)".
-.. on misery of own employees and on misfortune / tragedy of sick and
"Dr. Olivieri's case - by
Dr. Jocelyn Downie
In 1996 Toronto hematologist Dr. Nancy Olivieri identified an unexpected
risk of a drug she was studying in industry-sponsored clinical trials
involving patients with thalassemia, an inherited, potentially fatal blood
disorder. When she moved to inform patients, the drug's manufacturer Apotex
Inc. prematurely terminated the trials. Simultaneously, the company issued
warnings of legal action against her should she disclose the risk to her
patients or anyone. Several months later, she identified a second, more
serious risk through review of patients' charts, and the company again
issued legal warnings against disclosure. Despite the possible legal action
by the company and the lack of effective assistance from her university and
hospital, Olivieri informed her patients and the scientific community of the
risks she had identified.
The dispute became public in 1998 when Dr. Olivieri published her findings
on the drug's risks in a leading scientific journal. Since then, she has
been subjected to a continuing series of public criticisms attempting to
discredit her -- by the hospital, by Apotex and by individuals.
The dispute has received international attention since 1998, largely because
it vividly illustrates fundamental problems regarding public safety in
matters of health care. Some aspects relevant to the case are: the changing
international political economy of the past quarter century; the rapid
growth of the pharmaceutical industry; the deteriorating financial
circumstances of universities and hospitals; the failure of government
agencies and universities to revise their research policies to address these
new circumstances; and the remoteness of clinical faculty from the
improvements in employment procedures gained by other professors during the
past half century. From 1996 onward, Dr. Olivieri was subjected to a series
of strongly adverse actions, by senior Hospital staff, the Hospital Board of
Trustees, officers of Apotex and others, some of them highly public. The
actions could have resulted in her medical practice licence being revoked,
with the consequent loss of her positions at the Hospital and at the
University, and the end of her career. The University publicly acknowledged
an obligation to defend her academic freedom, yet provided no effective
support to her until more than two and a half years after Apotex first
issued legal warnings to her. It was only after the combined interventions
of the CAUT, the local faculty association and two of the world's leading
authorities in thalassemia that the University began to provide effective
support to Dr. Olivieri."
and York University - "Universities were turning increasingly to corporate
sponsors, and some corporations were prepared to give multi-million dollar
donations in return for 'naming opportunities' and other considerations. The
dispute between Apotex and Dr. Olivieri erupted in 1996. At around the same
time, a disagreement between the administration of the Hospital for Sick
Children and Dr. Olivieri developed when the Hospital proposed that
treatment of her largest patient group, those with sickle cell disease, be
'rationalised' by outsourcing their care to a suburban hospital. Patients'
families and Dr. Olivieri objected on the basis that patients with this very
complex disease should be treated in tertiary hospitals with leading
specialists on staff. Also around this time, the University of Toronto and
Apotex were in negotiations over a major donation. In 1998, when the
Olivieri case became public, the University and Apotex had reached agreement
in principle to what would then have been the largest donation ever received
by the University -- $20 million for the university and an additional $10
million for affiliated hospitals." Apotex threatened to withhold donations -