EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cigarettes, Drugs and Corporations
The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. - John Ruskin, Modern Painters
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose -the news about the newest cholesterol lowering drugs and disclosure of the fact that there had been non-disclosure. It was reminiscent of the cigarette ads of many years ago.
An ad for Philip Morris that appeared in the May 22, 1943 Saturday Evening Post was full of great news about Philip Morris cigarettes, even though by then their creator knew they were killing their friends and devotees. The ad's headline in large letters cheerfully inquired: "Smoking Less- or Smoking More*?" and then * referred one to a small note that proudly proclaimed: "Gov't Figure show all-time peak in smoking". That was followed by the statement that "You're safer smoking PHILIP MORRIS!" It then went on to proudly state that those cigarettes were "Scientifically Proved less irritating for the nose and throat."
Having gotten through the hype, the ad continues in a more sober vein stating that: "Reported by eminent doctors-in medical journals. Their own findings that when smokers changed to Philip Morris 'every case of irritation of the nose or throat-due to smoking-either cleared up completely, or definitely improved!'" The additional good news imparted by the ad was that the subject of the tests that proved the beneficial effects of smoking were "actual men and women" as distinguished from "laboratory analysis" thus demonstrating conclusively that Philip Morris cigarettes were "far less irritating to your nose and throat." The only caveat to the obviously unmitigated benefits of switching to Philip Morris was the equivalent to today's warning that they might kill you. It stated: "NOTE we do not claim curative power for Philip Morris. But, man! What solid proof they're better . . . . . safer. . . to smoke." There's no indication what text was omitted from the ellipses.
It was all brought to mind when reading the full-page ads by Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals trumpeting the virtues of Zetia and Vytorin, the latter being a combination of Zetia and Zocor, a statin. The drug companies conducted a test called "Enhance" that ended almost two years ago. They forgot to disclose the results of the test until January 14, 2008. Among the results was the fact that Zetia failed to slow the accumulation of fatty plaque in the arteries and might have contributed to its formation. The tests also disclosed there might be adverse effects on the liver when Zetia was used in combination with statins, the drugs that lower cholesterol.
Dr. Harlan N. Krumholz, a Yale cardiologist faulted the drug companies' failure to disclose the results of the study when they became available. Commenting to the New York Times he said: "People may have been on this drug without the ability to know that there was additional data that may have thrown into question its effectiveness. That's extremely unfortunate, and that's an understatement." Dr. Steven E. Nissen, the chairman of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic, described the results of the tests as "shocking" and went on to say that the test results were "as bad a result for the drug as anybody could have feared."
It was not only a bad result for patients and the drugs. It was also a bad result for stockholders in the two companies since the two drugs generated $5 billion in sales in 2007. Although the tests only raised the possibility of damage to the liver and threw into doubt whether or not those taking the drugs lowered their risk of heart attack, there was one thing the tests did lower-the companies' profits from sales of the drugs. Following disclosure of the report, the stock's price dropped and sales of the drugs will certainly follow suit. Fortunately for stockholders, the two drug companies are not sitting quietly by. They have begun an advertising campaign to counter the bad results of the study believing, as all drug companies do, in the magical power of advertising.
In full-page ads in major newspapers around the country they describe the study as one study that has "generated a lot of confusion," although apparently not in the minds of the doctors quoted above. The ad states that the "American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association agree that lowering bad cholesterol is important," conveniently overlooking the fact that while the drug lowered bad cholesterol it increased the growth of fatty plaque in the arteries when compared with patients taking Zocor alone. The rest of the ad differed from the cigarette ad in one important respect. Less than half the ad extolled the virtues of the drugs. The remainder described in excruciating detail all the terrible things that might happen to those taking the drug as is the requirement in drug advertisements.
The ad won't help those who have taken the medicine. They can only hope the medicine hasn't harmed them. Whether it helps the stockholders to whom non-disclosure of the test results suggests the companies have greater loyalty than to their customers, only time will tell.
Christopher Brauchli-brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu For his political commentary http://humanraceandothersports.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
16 Comments so far
Show Allthank your (p)resident, boys and girls.
deregulatin' every damn thing except WE THE PEOPLE since 2000.
/wadda dumbyass
I'm sure they'll hire the same PR people, pundits and "scientists" who fogged the atmosphere (and facts) around global warming/climate change to do likewise with this unnecessary chemical behemoth. If a Prez can get away with murder and still hold office after 900 plus documented lies leading to a war of choice, the SUPREME crime as per the Geneva Conventions, why wouldn't the captains of big pharma deploy the same stategy when honesty, decency, accountability and integrity hardly pay these days? And we all know what deity they worship before...
I keep asking my doctors when they prescribe medicine
1. what were the tests
2. who paid for the tests
3. what were the parameters.
if the can't answer I ask how do they dare prescribe it.
I also send articles like this to my doctor friends.
dlNelson: If you really do that, you are being immature. The world is not going to stop for you.
My minor daughter got addicted to Marlboro's at her public school beginning in the fifth grade. I called the Atria Group and asked for help getting her unaddicted and they hung up on me-of course.
If my daughter contracts cancer from these Drug Dealers and dies, I will get close to them and start shooting. Kill my child? These baby-killers pray I outlive my little girl.
First paragraph dead true.
Second just a bit of venting you see.
Quitting tobacco can be done and big tobacco should help people who want to quit-with 30 day low-cost subsidized-free clinics. Particularly for young people hooked as children.
We forget the rule in America. Corporations and big money rule. Profits first, well-being of the people second. Even after the so-called Big Tobacco Settlement, who was designated to produce the anti-smoking commercials? See? The rule is absolute, all else is a smokescreen.
Smokers really do pay their share in taxes and fees. Here in MN the 75 cent a pack (fee) is the only thing keeping the State in the black. If you want to quit and need help, it's not free. I just got a prescription for Chantix, the quit smoking pill, but then there's the very high price so I haven't had it filled. Even with the doctor's 10 dollar coupon off, he warned me even with insurance it's over one hundred for one month supply.
Really disappointed that the SCHIP child insurance program that the democrats pushed for was to be solely funded off of smokers. Much as I hate Bush, I'm glad he vetoed it, because of the way it was to be funded.
"Smokers really do pay their share in taxes and fees."
Wrongo, Nanoo. CDC says the health care costs ALONE for cigarettes amounts to $7.00 per pack. Add in the "soft" costs of worker absenteeism, lost productivity, lost quality of life, litter, fires caused by smokers, etc., and the total comes up to about $45.00 per pack.
OK. I exaggerated, as I found out when I went back and googled the topic. Turns out it's only $41 per pack. My bad.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-11-26-smoking-costs_x.htm
Nanoo: what is the cost of all these children smoking? blame me, okay I'm the parent, but my girl and her friends all started by "sneaking" them, smoking at school...it was insidious and unstoppable. What is Erica's life worth? She just turned 17, Nanoo.
Best wishes... They are a tough one. mike & a dad.
You can only give someone the facts about something and they must ultimately make their own decision. I'm old enough to remember when cigarette advertising was banned from TV and radio, and anti-smoking commercials used to be more hard-hitting. I wonder why they didn't ban ALL cigarette advertising then?
Now, any smoker that defends his or her addiction or feels unjustly treated for cigarettes being taxed must remember that they are setting an example for SOMEONE. They may claim that they are not promoting or supporting tobacco, but that is really denial on their part.
Additionally, there have been studies that show a direct correlation between smoking and the price of cigarettes: less people start and more people quit when the price goes up. Duh.
So I say tax 'em all you want, and use the money to create advertisements showing pictures of sick and dying smokers in anti-cigarette commercials.
But before you attack me for this post, be aware that many of my anti-smoking sentiments are/were shared by dying smokers who had formally been my friends.
mikepeters: I understand you sentiments, but all is not lost if she quits, and something may induce her to do so yet. Best wishes.
One thing left unwritten but that should be noted is that the majority of big tobacco companies have moved their corporate headquarters to Switzerland. This is not by accident. it was done to protect themselves from the flood of health claims that await them from the European market (Europe was much slower to give up the thrall of smoking...the various European governments liked the tax revenue). Said penalties are more than likely to be more severe as corporate influence in European politics is nowhere near as strong as it is in the USA (stronger unions, better median educational levels, & higher voter participation rates). Moving to Switzerland allows them a "safe" home base from which to manufacture and market their death sticks.
somehow we got off topic here; the subject is drug companies lying and cheating on their testing: as an ex Pharmacist this just PISSES ME OFF.
a lot of time was spent is school between ourselves discussing ethics and the law, and big Pharma is maybe the biggest cheat and liar in the world
all I can say is the current TV and print advertising is unethical and should be outlawed in its enterity
What we have failed to notice is that the FDA is just as bad as any cigarette or alcohol company. They have their own set of rules and there own laws. They FDA says that,'Only a drug can cure a disease." Is this true, no. We all know that there are natural things that we can take in order to get rid or a virus but the FDA can not make money off of natural cures. They bring out these new drugs all the time that are supposed to help someone when in reality all they do is either send someone to Narconon Vista Bay or they end up causing the person more problems due to the side effects of the drugs they are currently using. They may do their tests for a few years and nothing may come up but what about long term? Two years for me is not long term. I mean like 20-50 years down the road. What will happen to someone that has been taking something that later we find out causes gene mutations or cancer? They will not be compensated for things that we did not know then. +
The FDA is definitely just as bad as Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. They are currently trying to ban electronic cigarettes, which have less than 1% of the 4000 chemicals found in standard tobacco cigarettes. Why would hey d this? Why would they try and keep a safer alternative to smoking out of the publics hands? Because they are guided by the hand of Big Tobacco, and stand to lose billions in tax revenue.
Johnny Blaze
http://www.halocigs.com