• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To register, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Pfizer to pay $60 million for bribery and corruption


Senior Member
Still a far cry from Glaxo Smith Kline recent $ 3 billion bribery fine. Must try harder guys :eek:

Pfizer Inc. agreed Tuesday to pay $60 million to settle charges alleging that some of its foreign subsidiaries bribed doctors and health-care officials in order to gain regulatory approval for the company’s drugs and boost sales in those countries.

...“Pfizer subsidiaries in several countries had bribery so entwined in their sales culture that they offered points and bonus programs to improperly reward foreign officials who proved to be their best customers,”

... Pfizer’s China employees also used travel incentives to bribe doctors, the SEC complaint said. In 2006, a Pfizer China marketing manager told his regional sales manager that the company would foot the travel bill for two doctors attending a conference in Australia only if the doctors promised to use no fewer than 4,200 injections a year and to prescribe a Pfizer product to more than 80 percent of their patients.



Senior Member
Cornwall England
Thanks Natasa. I am a little confused by the article however. It begins with claims that these actions sought 'regulatory approval for the company's drugs' but the remaining article does not infer that this occurred, rather that the actions were to boost sales and promote their drugs' use by doctors in other countries.

Aside from the fact that Pfizer themselves reported the issue (and coupled with this fact it might be in part why the fine was comparatively less that GSK (although I believe with the latter the reported practice was far more widespread and unethical from memory hence perhaps the larger fine)) I think they are referring to drugs that had already been approved for use in those countries.

What I mean is that these were not experimental drugs or ones potentially more dangerous than had been reported at the approval stage. At least the article does not infer they were. However, the sales practices were wrong and I am glad it has been revealed in this manner.

It would have been useful to know whether the individuals at management level who told the salespeople to do this were fired. If they weren't then they perhaps should have been.