Vioxx and Ghostwriting Explained: (Recipe for Disaster)

[Guest guest]

Vioxx and Ghostwriting Explained: (Recipe for Disaster)

_http://www.naturalnews.com/023253.html_

(http://www.naturalnews.com/023253.html)

 

 

(NaturalNews) Blurring the line between best-selling novels and best-selling

pharmaceutical drug ads, Merck Inc. disguised professional writers as Vioxx

drug safety researchers.

 

As if their drugs were not scary enough, Merck brought in “ghostwriters†to

sign off on research and pose as independent, primary authors on drug safety

reports that amounted to nothing more than marketing propaganda. Though

common in the pharmaceutical industry, this deceptive practice is normally

difficult to prove.

 

However a team led by Joseph Ross, of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New

York, recently studied about 250 documents released to the courts by Merck

during the Vioxx hearings. Many of the documents were discovered to have been

ghostwritten by medical publishing companies. Merck defended itself, claiming

things were taken out of context, but the implications are, well... spooky.

 

How the Ghostwriting Process Works

 

1.Drug companies write reviews of their own drugs, downplaying the risks.

The information is presented as if it were a public service announcement from

independent health safety experts concerned only with saving lives. In

reality, the reviews are paid commercial advertisements.

 

2.Outside authors sign off as the primary authors of the reviews, implying

they were there at the very beginning when in actuality they were only there

at the very end of the study.

 

3.The drug company publishes the reviews in medical journals.

 

4.During the FDA drug approval process, the drug company references the

reviews as clear evidence that independent, scientific research has validated

the

safety of their drug.

 

For example, two distinct versions of the Alzheimer's trial called Study 078

were found. The draft version listed â€external author†in the space where

the lead authors name would normally appear, while the published version

listed the names of several academic researchers instead.

 

Scientific Evidence

 

Imagine if a pharmaceutical company was giving a presentation about the

safety of a new drug to the FDA and they pulled out a TV remote and played

their

own commercial as evidence that the drug worked! Side effects would include

nausea and vomiting. Yet this is almost exactly what really happens with

ghostwriting. Pharmaceutical companies are presenting their own (written)

commercial ads as scientific evidence. Meanwhile these same drug companies

claim that

herbs (which have been proven safe and effective after thousands of years of

documented use) are actually unsafe due to lack of scientific evidence.

 

History of Vioxx

 

In 2004 in was discovered that tens of thousands of people worldwide

suffered death due to heart failure related to the use of Vioxx, the brand name

for

Rofecoxib, then a best-selling drug of Merck. You may remember the TV

commercials with a former Olympic skater:

 

Dorothy Hamill: " When I started skating at 8 years old, I thought I'd never

experience the thrill of winning a medal. With all the great memories has

come another thing I never thought I'd experience: the pain of osteoarthritis. "

 

Voice over: " Vioxx is here... with one little pill a day, Vioxx can provide

24-hour relief. "

 

Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug when it was revealed that Vioxx caused a

significant number of heart attacks and strokes. FDA scientist and whistle

blower Dr. David Graham, in testimony before the US Senate, estimated that

88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks occurred as a result of Vioxx and about 30%-40%

of these resulted in preventable death. Thus it is estimated that between

27,000 and 56,000 Americans died as a result of Vioxx (for the sake of

comparison, about 58,000 US Soldiers died during the Vietnam conflict).

 

Vioxx at its peak in 2003 was being taken by 20 million Americans, with 2003

sales of Vioxx totaling $2.5 billion. Merck later settled for $4.85 Billion

with families of victims of Vioxx.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

In 2005, an FDA advisory panel ruled that it was safe to put Vioxx back on

the market. A closer look at the votes revealed that 10 of the 32 members of

the advisory panel had proven financial ties to Merck. Here is how the votes

were split:

 

* 8 of 22 advisers without financial ties voted to return Vioxx to the

market (36%)

 

* 9 of 10 advisers with financial ties voted to return Vioxx to the market

(90%)

 

In 30 total votes (for Vioxx, Bextra and Celebrex), those with financial

ties were roughly 8 times more likely to vote that their own drugs were safe

(the votes were 28-2 versus 29-37 in favor, respectively). Yet the same

advisers

insist that their decisions are not influenced by these conflicts of

interest.

 

The Future of Big Pharma

 

It is interesting to note that since the 2004 Vioxx scandal, the FDA has

increased ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and now the FDA is claiming that

companies like Merck should not be held liable for damage caused by any drugs

that are FDA approved! This is the legal equivalent of “because I said soâ€.

While a recent survey on Natural News showed that 98% of readers feel that

drug companies should be held liable for their own drugs, legislation such as

Senate Bill 1959 (HR 1955) claim that any US citizen who speaks out against

any government agency (like the FDA) is a " Homegrown Terrorist " . This unholy

alliance that exists between big business and big government is what

Congressman Ron Paul (R- Texas) referred to as “The Medical (Congressional)

Industrial

Complexâ€. It is part of the reason he sponsored HR 2117, The Health Freedoms

Protection Act.

 

If companies like Merck (proven to endorse deceptive business practices) are

relieved of all liability for their drugs (proven to be dangerous), what

will their ghostwriters pen as a sequel to the best-selling Vioxx? I predict it

will be a horror story.

_____________

 

Recipe for Drug Disaster (Liability Free!) (Satire)

 

Ingredients:

 

* Greedy drug company executives.

* Corrupt FDA advisers.

* Conflicts of interest.

* Censored FDA scientists.

* Direct to consumer marketing of drugs.

* Gullible public.

* Limited liability for drug companies.

 

Instructions:

 

* Mix drug company executives with FDA advisers.

* Add conflicts of interest and stir.

* Ignore warnings from FDA scientists who may boil.

* Keep mixture in a dark environment until FDA drug approval is achieved

(about 2-3 days).

* Advertise new drug on TV depicting emotional, rags-to-riches " miracle

cure " .

* Medicate millions in gullible public with new drug.

* Lobby Supreme Court to remove liability for damage caused by any FDA

approved drug.

* When thousands become ill from drug, blame the FDA for approving drug in

the first place.

* Sick public can be used as starter for the next batch.

* Makes about $6 billion profit.

* Serves 3-6 people.

 

 

 

 

About the author

Neil McLaughlin is a computer scientist and inventor specializing in 3d

graphics and simulation.