Lipitor Ads and Women: Grounds For A Lawsuit

[Brian C.]

*http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/lipitor-advertising-women-grounds-for-a-lawsuit/


Brian.

[cjbrooksjc]

These people (Pharma) are shameless.

[Brian C.]

Psychopathic behaviour.


Brian.

[Biologist]

Page 147 from "Our Daily Meds" by Melody Petersen

Mr. Jones said that over the years he had grown disturbed by the rising number of unethical practices he observed. "As the industry learned how effective it could be in stretching demand, it began to drift away from its ethical moorings," he testified. As an example, he described how Abbott had decided to market a drug to patients suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease, even though the company's scientists had little reason to believe it would help them. The disease, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS, is a cruel and fatal one; patients rapidly lose control of their muscles until they are paralyzed.

Abbott's executives, he said, saw the plan to market the drug to ALS patients as "a solution to a short-term revenue problem." One of their analyses, he said, estimated that it would take about six months for doctors to see the drug was not working for their patients. The executives estimated the plan would be worth millions of dollars to the company even though ALS is rare. This is because Abbott was charging each patient about ten thousand dollars for the drug, which was known as thyrotropin releasing hormone or simply TRH. There had originally been a reason for that high price, Mr. Jones explained. At first, employees had made the hormone by hand. But in 1985 the company's chemists had found a way to manufacture the drug more cheaply, so the price could be dropped sharply to two thousand dollars for each patient.

"The task force working on TRH was called together for a meeting," Mr. Jones testified. "Company doctors and scientists gathered around the table with enthusiasm at finally being about to lower the price...But marketing executives asked why we would want to do that. Someone even said that we should not worry about the price because neighbors would hold garage sales to raise money for those with ALS. The people in the room were stunned."

Mr. Jones said he later met with the executive in charge of marketing of the drug and asked that the company lower the price and stop using publicity to recruit ALS patients to a clinical trial. The patients in the trial had to pay for the medicine even though they were helping the company test a product. "My recommendations were met with a blank stare," he said. "They were not acknowledged or discussed."

Soon afterward Mr. Jones answered a call to this office. On the line was a social worker in a small town in Arkansas who pleaded for the company to provide TRH to a family that could not afford it. The father of the family had just died of cancer, the social worker explained, and now a son had been diagnosed with ALS.

"I ended up repeating eventually the party line -- that it was just so expensive to make," Mr. Jones testified. "It's not true. Not long afterwards, I left the company and the industry."

"These practices are commonplace in the industry," he continued, "and the industry works hard to hide what it is doing. Drug companies have institutionalized deception."


Biologist

[Brian C.]

"Institutionalised deception". This is what we have to deal with at every turn.
For hundreds of years the monopoly of the Church here in Europe.

Thank you for that little glimpse behind the curtain Biologist.
Our only hope for survival is to wake up to stark reality and adjust our behaviour accordingly.



Brian.

[Allen1]

Hi there Brian and Biologist.

Brian,

your link (*http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/09/lipitor-advertising-women-grounds-for-a-lawsuit/ ) has indeed got many other leads branching off from it via the links in the texts and all good reading and eye openers especially the readers comments.

Did you look at "Dianne's" post and expand the text (last posting in your link), if not take a look at the FAQ, Links and resources options at the top right of the page :-
*http://www.pharmaccountability.org/FAQ.html

There is so much to read from your link that it will take me ages to take it all in

Cheers,

Allen.

[Brian C.]

You've read more of it than I have Allen

I'm a skimmer, always have been but life post-Lipitor means I can't concentrate for more than a few minutes so I like (i.e. need ) to farm out stuff for others to rummage

Thanks for turning that up.

I hope more than just us few "regulars" are reading all this stuff....


Brian.

[Allen1]

Hi there Brian,

some of the comments left on The New York Times about the upcoming Supreme Court case for Vermont musician named Diana Levine have got to be bought and paid for. I cannot believe that the amount of duff comments have come from anyone with any common sense and especially so seeing that this case concerns “pre-emption,” and the outcome could be drastic for all Americans if she loses.

This is not about a statin drug but it has to do with insufficient warning of how the drug is administered, we have seen similar comments left on other publications here i.e. Daily Mail etc. for statins where someone is being paid to mislead or play down any serious effects as mild or very rare occurrences.
*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/us/19scotus.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I registered at NYtimes so the above link may not work for you (probably will though).

Still loads of links to follow and I have had a good day today with not getting too exhausted while browsing :D

All the best,

Allen :D