CHD Book Club: Taking On Big Pharma: Dr. Charles Bennett’s Battle

When readers want to engage with books in greater depth, they form book clubs so they can explore the material with friends and like-minded folks. That’s the idea behind the CHD Book Club!

The first selection (January, 2023) in the CHD Book Club is “Taking On Big Pharma: Dr. Charles Bennett’s Battle.”

With board certification in oncology and a Ph.D. in public health, Dr. Charles Bennett was flying high – until he discovered that some high-income drugs had some very bad side effects. A pharmaceutical executive warned him, “If you publish this, I will destroy you.” Subsequent events suggest that he made good on that promise. Retired law professor Julius Getman and his wife Terri LeClercq, a retired English professor, met the beleaguered Dr. Bennett while on a cruise and became so intrigued they spent the next five years researching and writing his story, bringing a set of fresh eyes to the pharmaceutical network of corruption.

Here are some thought-provoking discussion questions to think about as you read “Taking On Big Pharma.” In addition, we invite you to view Brian Hooker’s interview with Dr. Bennett on his CHD.TV program Doctors & Scientists as well as our interview with the authors on Good Morning CHD on Saturday, January 21, 2023.

Questions for Discussion

1. Julius Getman and Terri LeClercq met Charlie Bennett on a cruise, then spent the next five years of their retirement researching and writing about him. What would get you interested enough in someone’s story to take on a project of that magnitude?
2. With board certification in oncology and a PhD in public policy, Dr. Bennett has chosen to focus his career on preventing adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs. As he said in an interview with CHD’s Brian Hooker, “My field is not too crowded.” Do you think pharmaceutical companies consider such prevention a priority? Why or why not? What about government agencies and the general public?
3. Dr. Bennett’s university colleagues reacted with hostility when charges were first brought against him, apparently believing the allegations were true. Do you think societal forces help companies like Amgen keep scientists toeing the company line?
4. According to Dr. Roy Poses (who writes the Health Care Renewal blog), Dr. Bennett was not legally responsible for the accounting discrepancies that underlay the charges against him; Northwestern University, as the administrator of the research grants, was. Why, then, was the state’s attorney Kurt Lindland able to target and pursue Dr. Bennett for more than five years?
5. Dr. Poses also cites several cases in the past wherein the government settled much larger research-grant grievances without specifically naming a transgressor. Why do you think the press release announcing the government’s settlement with Northwestern University specifically named Dr. Bennett?
6. Dr. Bennett discovered – too late – that his original attorney, David Stetler, whose fees were paid by his employer, Northwestern University, was in partnership with David Rosenbloom, an attorney for Amgen. Do you think there was a conflict of interest there? Was it ethical for Stetler to represent Dr. Bennett? If not, what do you think Bennett should have done or should do about it in the future?
7. Dr. Bennett was locked out of his office, had his research suspended – despite a tight research timeline – and had to pay a fine of $475,000 (plus interest) as well as legal fees of $600,000 to put an end to his legal woes. Do you think any part of that was fair or appropriate? Why or why not? Was he treated as if he were guilty until proven innocent – the opposite of the way our criminal justice system is supposed to work?
8. Much is made in “Taking On Big Pharma” of Dr. Bennett’s “larger than life” personality. There appears to be no question that he enjoys the limelight. How much do you think that played into his insistence on publishing his scientific findings, and how much do you think it played into his “punishment”? Would a quieter man have been as likely to publish such incendiary findings? And if so, would law enforcement have been as likely to pursue him so doggedly?
9. An Amgen executive told Dr. Bennett, “If you publish this, I will destroy you.” Even Charlie was temporarily cowed by that and did not publish his findings until later. How often do you think such pressure is put on a researcher, and how often do you think it succeeds?
10. Charlie had long suspected that Amgen was behind his legal and academic troubles, but even he was shocked when internal Amgen emails (turned over during the discovery phase of a multistate lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company) specifically named him as a problem, saying that “something needed to be done” to limit his influence. Does it surprise you that company executives would seek to neutralize a critical voice? How far do you think corporations would go to protect their bottom line?
11. Does Dr. Bennett’s battle remind you of anyone else’s, in the medical field or elsewhere? Are you familiar with the names Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Dr. Christopher Exley, Dr. Christopher Shaw, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, or Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini and the efforts to prevent them from doing or publishing research that could hurt corporate interests? Do you think Bennett had anything in common with these doctors and scientists, and if so, what?
12. What did you think of these doctors and researchers in the past? Did reading “Taking On Big Pharma” or some other work make you see them in a new light? What do you think of them now?
13. What does Dr. Bennett’s battle mean for those of us who want accurate information on the risks vs. benefits of lucrative pharmaceutical products? And what implications does it hold for other powerful industries that may be harming human health and/or the environment, such as the pesticide, cell phone, tobacco, and oil industries?