Looking beyond the spin of Big Pharma PR. But encouraging gossip. Come in and confide, you know you want to! “I’ll publish right or wrong. Fools are my theme, let satire be my song.” Email: jackfriday2011(at)hotmail.co.uk
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Merck - Vioxx: "the V squad"
The Vioxx trail jury got its first look on Tuesday at e-mail messages, internal documents and other materials showing Merck was concerned about the drug's potential for causing heart attacks long before taking it off the market.
They also got to watch a movie: “Be the Power -V Squad,” a campy, 12-minute sales-training video played in court, which showed two Merck salespeople dressed as superheroes — each in a black suit, with an orange “V” on the chest.
In the video, created in 2001, our two drug reps took on a series of opponents identified as "obstacles," including one person who whined about the greater risk of heart attacks with Vioxx.
"But that's not true," one member of "The V Squad" said.
The video, like the internal documents, struck at a central theme in the cases of plaintiffs Thomas Cona and John McDarby — that Merck knew its drug was dangerous but misled doctors, consumers and its own sales representatives about the risks in a bid to promote a $2.5 billion-a-year product that was key to the company's future.
Merck marketing executive David Anstice testified the company did not deceive doctors or the public about the safety risks of the painkiller Vioxx, but spent much of his time on the stand on the defensive about the firm's ads and promotional materials.
Anstice, who described the 2 1/2-day event as a "launch meeting" that ended with a party, gave a speech during which Vioxx tablets were carried out triumphantly on a sliver platter.
Its ad spending was equally prodigious. In one year alone, it spent as much on consumer ads as Budweiser and Pepsi, Lanier said.
"Yes, we spent a lot of money," Anstice said.
Hotshot Mark Lanier, grilled Anstice about the huge marketing campaign Whitehouse Station-based Merck built around Vioxx. He also documented internal concern among Merck scientists and management about potential heart problems associated with the drug, which was withdrawn from the market in September 2004.
Insiders view: This is the "heart" of the case: what Merck thought in private vs what they continued to do in public.
John Curran AP
Jeff May
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment