You Want a Moral Issue? How About Drugs That Don't Kill?

[Guest guest]

 

You Want A Moral Issue? How About Drugs That Don't Kill? November 24, 2004 http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=745 ]As Democrats continue to search heaven and earth for a moral values issue they can call their own, I have just the prescription: Why not start with the immoral behavior of giant drug companies such as Merck that continue to sacrifice the health of the public on the altar of higher and higher profits?According to last week's Senate testimony by Dr. David Graham, associate director for science and medicine in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, as many as 55,000 patients may have died as a result of taking Vioxx. Shocking. But not to Merck, which had spent hundreds of millions of dollars convincing Americans to take its blockbuster pain pill even though the company's own studies showed that it greatly increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.If Democrats want to appeal to voters who believe in promoting what the president calls "a culture of life," they should make it a priority to put an end to the kind of corporate behavior that promotes a culture of death.Merck's actions throughout the entire Vioxx affair have been utterly despicable. When the company pulled the drug off the market in September, CEO Raymond Gilmartin claimed that the scientific findings that led to the withdrawal were "unexpected." This is like releasing a ravenous wolf into a pen full of sheep, then acting surprised that lamb chops are on the menu. Recently uncovered internal Merck documents show that, as far back as 1998 - a year before the drug was even approved by the FDA - the drug giant had evidence indicating that Vioxx was a potential killer.But instead of going back to the drawing board, the company made the heart-stopping decision to push ahead - using every weapon in its well-funded arsenal to put off regulators, rope in consumers and keep the bad news from surfacing. They did a masterful job, turning Vioxx into a commercial elixir: Last year alone, sales of the drug totaled $2.5 billion. It was a huge success. Unless you were one of the people who had to be sacrificed for it.Merck's CEO also claimed that the company's handling of Vioxx showed it was "really putting patient safety first." Which it definitely did - if by "first" he meant right after profits and Merck's stock price.Indeed, those internal documents reveal that nothing in the Merck corporate hierarchy was more important than covering the company's backside. One offers an "obstacle handling guide" for "all field personnel with responsibility for Vioxx." Another is titled "Dodge Ball Vioxx" and suggests ways Merck salespeople can deal with troubling questions raised by doctors concerned about the safety of Vioxx. The final four pages of the manual each contain a single instruction: "DODGE!" (I wonder if Ben Stiller has heard about this? I smell sequel!)Merck also exhibited a rare gift for putting negative findings into a positive light. When one scientific study found that Vioxx, while indeed multiplying the risk of cardiovascular complications, caused fewer digestive side effects than other pain-relief drugs, the company strong-armed the FDA into allowing it to display the good news about fewer upset stomachs more prominently on the drug's label than that pesky stuff about more heart attacks. I'm surprised they didn't try to turn this tidbit into a TV ad: "Sure Vioxx can increase your chances of cardiac arrest, but at least you won't have an upset tummy when it kills you!"Speaking of ads, the most loathsome aspect of the whole Vioxx affair is the way Merck used a $500 million marketing campaign to persuade over 20 million Americans to pop its noxious little pill. And company executives continued to run these ads long after they knew there was big trouble brewing. I'm sure our evangelical friends in the red states will agree that there ought to be a special place in hell for corporations that show such a wanton disregard for human life.And if any of this sounds familiar, it should. It's certainly giving me a profound sense of drug company deja vu, with the tragic stories of Baycol, Rezulin and Duract still fresh in my mind. How many times do we have to travel down this deadly path - the side of the road littered with bodies and the empty containers of drugs that were approved despite serious questions, and left on the market despite growing evidence of innocent lives being lost?And after each case come the inevitable calls for accountability and promises to reform the system - promises that are then forgotten until the next killer drug hits the headlines.During last week's hearings on the Vioxx scandal, Dr. Graham, while citing an additional five drugs that he feels pose a danger to the public, said that the nation's compromised drug-oversight system had left Americans "virtually defenseless" against killer drugs and warned that we are facing "the single greatest drug-safety catastrophe in the history of this country or the history of the world."And you thought our biggest problem with pharmaceuticals was President Bush refusing to allow us to get cheap drugs from Canada - which he laughably justifies because of concerns about the safety of Canadian drugs.So why don't things ever change, even as the death toll mounts? As always, the answer can be found by following the money. The big pharmaceutical companies continue to be the 800-pound gorillas of American politics - their power stemming from a muscular combination of lobbying ($150 million a year), campaign contributions (close to $50 million doled out to federal candidates over the past four years), and powerful friends in very high places (Don Rumsfeld was formerly CEO of drug industry powerhouse G.D. Searle; and Mitch Daniels, the former White House budget director and new governor-elect of Indiana, was a senior vice president at Eli Lilly.)In a 2000 e-mail, Merck's chief of research called Vioxx's propensity to cause heart attacks and strokes "a shame." Something his company clearly lacks. Of course, the real shame is that we continue to have a regulatory system in which corporate greed, political timidity and a culture of cronyism have rendered the public good a quaint afterthought.Sen. Charles Grassley, the conservative Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee that held the Vioxx hearings, lambasted the FDA for being "under the thumb" of the very pharmaceutical companies it is supposed to regulate, saying the agency "has a relationship with the drug companies that is too cozy." Are Democrats going to sit by while conservatives like Grassley take the moral lead on this issue?If the Democratic Party is serious about reclaiming the moral-values high ground, it needs to stop trying to figure out how to triangulate on gay marriage and take a long, hard look in the medicine-chest mirror. Then open it up, let fly with the proper moral outrage, and start cleaning out the mess that lies inside. It's time for Democrats to become the real pro-life party.

[Guest guest]

i agree wholeheartely with you---my issue is with smith --beechman-kline

in england-----the baby shots are causing so many problems for years

autism addh so may things gone through the roof doctors or

our great CDC wont admit it but confront the mothers and

families who have these kids and find out that they had perfectly

normal kids till shots kicked in------my own granddaughter went for

her dpal shot----hmmm wonder why they changed it from

dpt-------and they said to watch her for 24 hours---- well it only

took 2---and she went into coma---doctors and hospitals said it was

acid reflux---who would believe that one i had been recearching

immune problems for about a year at this time so there was fast

action on the situation she came out of it and no more

shots----but everyone fights against it my daughter fights me tooth

and nail--even going along with " acid reflus " diagnosis-----why do

they tell u to watch them for 24 hours?? if nothing is gonna

happen--- perservative in vaccines is thermasol wich has mercury in it

our babies cant handle it a grown up shouldnt handle it dont

they tell us to avoid tuna for that reason---but guess babies are

easy pickings----ALSO one of big ceoS at pharmatceutical house in

britain is retired from WHERE-----CDC--YES its all about money

sorry so long i get on soapbox and overflow with anger mary

-

creativesources

Thursday, November 25, 2004 5:09 AM

" You Want a Moral Issue? How About Drugs

That Don't Kill? "

 

 

 

 

You Want A Moral Issue? How About Drugs That Don't Kill?

 

November 24, 2004

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=745 ]

 

 

As Democrats continue to search heaven and earth for a moral values issue

 

they can call their own, I have just the prescription: Why not start with

 

the immoral behavior of giant drug companies such as Merck that continue

to

sacrifice the health of the public on the altar of higher and higher

profits?

 

According to last week's Senate testimony by Dr. David Graham, associate

director for science and medicine in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, as

many as 55,000 patients may have died as a result of taking Vioxx.

Shocking.

But not to Merck, which had spent hundreds of millions of dollars

convincing

Americans to take its blockbuster pain pill even though the company's own

 

studies showed that it greatly increased the risk of heart attacks and

strokes.

 

If Democrats want to appeal to voters who believe in promoting what the

president calls " a culture of life, " they should make it a priority to

put

an end to the kind of corporate behavior that promotes a culture of

death.

 

Merck's actions throughout the entire Vioxx affair have been utterly

despicable. When the company pulled the drug off the market in September,

 

CEO Raymond Gilmartin claimed that the scientific findings that led to

the

withdrawal were " unexpected. " This is like releasing a ravenous wolf into

a

pen full of sheep, then acting surprised that lamb chops are on the menu.

 

Recently uncovered internal Merck documents show that, as far back as

1998 -

a year before the drug was even approved by the FDA - the drug giant had

evidence indicating that Vioxx was a potential killer.

 

But instead of going back to the drawing board, the company made the

heart-stopping decision to push ahead - using every weapon in its

well-funded arsenal to put off regulators, rope in consumers and keep the

 

bad news from surfacing. They did a masterful job, turning Vioxx into a

commercial elixir: Last year alone, sales of the drug totaled $2.5

billion.

It was a huge success. Unless you were one of the people who had to be

sacrificed for it.

 

Merck's CEO also claimed that the company's handling of Vioxx showed it

was

" really putting patient safety first. " Which it definitely did - if by

" first " he meant right after profits and Merck's stock price.

 

Indeed, those internal documents reveal that nothing in the Merck

corporate

hierarchy was more important than covering the company's backside. One

offers an " obstacle handling guide " for " all field personnel with

responsibility for Vioxx. " Another is titled " Dodge Ball Vioxx " and

suggests

ways Merck salespeople can deal with troubling questions raised by

doctors

concerned about the safety of Vioxx. The final four pages of the manual

each

contain a single instruction: " DODGE! " (I wonder if Ben Stiller has heard

 

about this? I smell sequel!)

 

Merck also exhibited a rare gift for putting negative findings into a

positive light. When one scientific study found that Vioxx, while indeed

multiplying the risk of cardiovascular complications, caused fewer

digestive

side effects than other pain-relief drugs, the company strong-armed the

FDA

into allowing it to display the good news about fewer upset stomachs more

 

prominently on the drug's label than that pesky stuff about more heart

attacks. I'm surprised they didn't try to turn this tidbit into a TV ad:

" Sure Vioxx can increase your chances of cardiac arrest, but at least you

 

won't have an upset tummy when it kills you! "

 

Speaking of ads, the most loathsome aspect of the whole Vioxx affair is

the

way Merck used a $500 million marketing campaign to persuade over 20

million

Americans to pop its noxious little pill. And company executives

continued

to run these ads long after they knew there was big trouble brewing. I'm

sure our evangelical friends in the red states will agree that there

ought

to be a special place in hell for corporations that show such a wanton

disregard for human life.

 

And if any of this sounds familiar, it should. It's certainly giving me a

 

profound sense of drug company deja vu, with the tragic stories of

Baycol,

Rezulin and Duract still fresh in my mind. How many times do we have to

travel down this deadly path - the side of the road littered with bodies

and

the empty containers of drugs that were approved despite serious

questions,

and left on the market despite growing evidence of innocent lives being

lost?

 

And after each case come the inevitable calls for accountability and

promises to reform the system - promises that are then forgotten until

the

next killer drug hits the headlines.

 

During last week's hearings on the Vioxx scandal, Dr. Graham, while

citing

an additional five drugs that he feels pose a danger to the public, said

that the nation's compromised drug-oversight system had left Americans

" virtually defenseless " against killer drugs and warned that we are

facing

" the single greatest drug-safety catastrophe in the history of this

country

or the history of the world. "

 

And you thought our biggest problem with pharmaceuticals was President

Bush

refusing to allow us to get cheap drugs from Canada - which he laughably

justifies because of concerns about the safety of Canadian drugs.

 

So why don't things ever change, even as the death toll mounts? As

always,

the answer can be found by following the money. The big pharmaceutical

companies continue to be the 800-pound gorillas of American politics -

their

power stemming from a muscular combination of lobbying ($150 million a

year), campaign contributions (close to $50 million doled out to federal

candidates over the past four years), and powerful friends in very high

places (Don Rumsfeld was formerly CEO of drug industry powerhouse G.D.

Searle; and Mitch Daniels, the former White House budget director and new

 

governor-elect of Indiana, was a senior vice president at Eli Lilly.)

 

In a 2000 e-mail, Merck's chief of research called Vioxx's propensity to

cause heart attacks and strokes " a shame. " Something his company clearly

lacks. Of course, the real shame is that we continue to have a regulatory

 

system in which corporate greed, political timidity and a culture of

cronyism have rendered the public good a quaint afterthought.

 

Sen. Charles Grassley, the conservative Republican who chairs the Senate

Finance Committee that held the Vioxx hearings, lambasted the FDA for

being

" under the thumb " of the very pharmaceutical companies it is supposed to

regulate, saying the agency " has a relationship with the drug companies

that

is too cozy. " Are Democrats going to sit by while conservatives like

Grassley take the moral lead on this issue?

 

If the Democratic Party is serious about reclaiming the moral-values high

 

ground, it needs to stop trying to figure out how to triangulate on gay

marriage and take a long, hard look in the medicine-chest mirror. Then

open

it up, let fly with the proper moral outrage, and start cleaning out the

mess that lies inside. It's time for Democrats to become the real

pro-life

party.