Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Can Vioxx Put the Democrats Out of Their Post-Election Pain?

By Arianna Huffington, AlterNet. Posted November 24, 2004.


If the Democratic Party is serious about reclaiming the moral values high ground, it needs to take a long hard look in the medicine chest mirror.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Arianna Huffington

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

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." Which is like releasing a ravenous wolf into a pen full of sheep then acting surprised that lamb chops are on the menu. Because 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 with 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 displaying 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 that there was big trouble brewing. I'm sure that 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.


Digg!

Find more Arianna at Ariannaonline.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2004! Sign up now »

Toward a New Washington Consensus on Trade
Election 2008: When will U.S. politicians recognize that NAFTA is bad for everyone?
By David Sirota, Creators Syndicate. May 16, 2008.
Is the Creative Internet Just About Dead?
The era of free, open online innovation may be coming to an end.
By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. May 15, 2008.
Justice for Dead Journalists
War on Iraq: A military whistle-blower has come forward with information that contradicts the government's official story about the deaths of two journalists.
By Amy Goodman, King Features Syndicate. May 15, 2008.

Advertisement