Apparently Pfizer didn't appreciate my article PFIZER CATCHES MARAVIROC WHISTLEBLOWER.*So to Joshua and the other Pfizer lawyers; and to the AstraZeneca PR people; and to anyone else featured on this blog, including Indian private detectives:
Please don't get upset. Write and tell me if you disagree with anything on this site and your letter will be published. Or just use the comment section to set the record straight. This is an open forum and we'd all love to hear from you!
This blog contains a mix of investigative reporting, spoofs, and satire.
That's one reason I have a broad TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT AND PRIVACY POLICY and this great and very Important Legal Disclaimer.
That disclaimer contains lots of words, among them this sentence describing Question Authority: "You can expect to encounter generalizations, simplifications, hypothecations, exaggerations, inflations, fabrications, but mostly a lot of truths no one ever had the guts to tell you before. (The last part I wrote, my lawyer made me put in those other words.)"
It also contains this sentence: "This blog is designed to be provocative, confrontational, irreverent, mocking, impertinent, flippant, impudent, bold, enlightening, naughty, mischievous, funny and tongue-in-cheek. If you have no humor or if you are a boring person you are not supposed to read this blog."
So seriously, Joshua, since I have been told that you are using this blog in the internal legal maraviroc investigation, even contradicting witnesses using this blog, perhaps you should show those important statements to the employees you interrogate . . . just a thought.
And to all the corporations out there, don't get upset and don't beat up the whistleblower:
Instead, write Question Authority and tell your version of the story!
We'd love to hear from you. And if you decide not to respond, you can't really complain.
At Question Authority we're always ready to set the record straight.
*Image is used for illustrative purposes only and does not depict anyone named or referred to in this article. It depicts a little boy. Duh.
3 comments:
The story is Levy is more concerned about you than about the truth of a Pfizer division out of control. They/Pfizer and by extension Josh Levy started down a road of intimidation and retaliation either directly or implied. They march in with volumes of data, pilfered emails,testimony, and an attitude of superiority meant to scare. They have every right to back door their own server but they do not have the right to intimidate and act like the freaking FBI. I wonder MR Levy how many employment laws you are breaking at Pfizer's behest? Are you aware of SOX in case your not here are a couple of excerpts. Happy reading.....
Protection can begin as soon as the evidence suggests that management thought the worker might be a witness in a future enforcement proceeding. Similarly, filing a grievance, contacting the media, refusing to perform illegal assignments, and other forms of standing up against violations of the law can be protected. Even complaints that are indirect or misdirected may result in protection if they reveal to management the intention to enforce the law. For employees assigned to accounting, quality control or enforcement work, doing that work too well is also protected.However, if the employee has concealed the protected activity from the employer, then an issue might arise about whether the employer knew about it before imposing the retaliatory action. For this reason, some whistleblowers will notify the employer directly, through a means that establishes the date on which the employer received the notice. Certified mail, email, and faxes can all provide evidence of the date of receipt. Sometimes, the employer's investigation or interrogation of an employee can reveal employer knowledge of the protected activity.The employee is not required to prove the underlying violation. The employee needs only a "reasonable basis" to believe that a violation might have occurred.
Any action that materially affects the value of your job is an adverse employment action. A discharge is clearly adverse. A demotion, cut in pay, denial of promotion (if someone else gets that promotion), or denial of benefits would also be considered adverse. The Department of Labor will also recognize a claim against a "hostile work environment," although courts still disagree about what employer actions would make the workplace sufficiently "hostile." Other employer actions that have been held to be adverse and therefore against the law, include a refusal to hire or rehire, blacklisting, reduction in work hours, reassigning work, transfer, denial of overtime, assignment to undesirable shifts, reprimands, threats to discharge or blacklist, providing unfavorable reference, damaging financial credit, close supervision, unpleasant assignments, evicting from company housing, and a sudden drop in evaluation scores after the protected activity.
JR
Dear Josh,
Please read this:
http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/subsites/corporate_citizenship/orangeguide.pdf
If I suspect that a physician I call on would be interested in learning about results from a clinical trial looking at a new use for one of Pfizer’s products, am I allowed to ask an RMRS colleague to speak to that physician about the trial results?
No. Pfizer colleagues, including RMRS colleagues, cannot promote the results of an off-label study to an HCP or encourage them to ask about new off-label uses. The
only time that a Pfizer Medical colleague can provide off-label information to a customer is in response to a specific unsolicited question seeking such information.
Unsolicited means that Pfizer has not encouraged a customer to ask the question. Any other attempt to provide this information would be considered off-label promotion and
is prohibited no matter which Pfizer colleague provides the information.
http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/subsites/corporate_citizenship/orangeguide.pdf
Post a Comment