You’re right - it’s Champs club, a clever play on Champix and so close to Champix that I wrote it as Champix in my last reply to you. That was inadvertent, although it does underscore that its an effort to get people to think about Champix. Also, I didn’t mean to suggest Pfizer violated Indian law, although the company may well have for all I know. Either way, I simply believe this should have been handled differently. Sorry for the late reply; I fell asleep watching those primary returns.

Regards
ed

Pfizer is welcome to use any and all of their test subjects who were in the Chantix trials for personal info, but not the consumers who are already being scammed by their product!

Privacy! Privacy! Privacy!

Thanks. That’s a very good point. And I appreciate that you wrote in. I would only add that the site isn’t entirely educational, at least in my mind, in that it’s not the Quit Smoking Club, it’s called Champix Club. And the product, of course, is clearly promoted.

The overriding benefit is imputed, as well, in that the med is clearly the focus of the site, which is about quitting smoking. So in that regard, I view that as a benefit and, as a result, the site isn’t particularly neutral - to me.

As a result, Pfizer may be complying with local law but, at the same time, promoting its product directly to consumers. Granted, there is no study data on the portion of the site that is visible without registration.

So Pfizer may argue product attributes aren’t promoted, but I would disagree in that, again, product benefits are. It’s a very fine line that doesn’t do the patient sufficient justice. I agree that this speaks to the broader issue, though, and requires careful balancing.

I also remain curious about the wide net cast on the registration form, what becomes of that additional personal data and the lack of privacy protection stipulated.

In any event, I appreciate the note.

Cheers
ed

With all due respect to my corporate communications buddies — most of whom came from the journalism backgrounds — it’s about time that you were trained a bit more in the laws and regulations governing pharma.

But perhaps the job of corporate spokespeople is not really to answer questions, but to deflect and dodge ‘em!

“Our responsibility - which we take very seriously - is to discourage litigation in all but the most egregious cases. Involving yourself in a lawsuit with defendants with unlimited resources is a mammoth undertaking, sapping most of your emotional, spiritual and economic resources. In the face of tragedy, these resources are already seriously depleted. Our experience is that the pharmaceutical companies will do virtually anything to protect their multibillion dollar drugs. When you sue them, their lawyers will open virtually every closet door in your life and microscopically examine every skeleton. Every aspect of your life - a spouse’s drinking problem, a daughters abortion, problems at work - will be blamed for what their drug might have caused. It’s not a bit overstating the rigors of litigation to tell you that the process itself might just be worse than the tragedy that caused the filing of the claim.”

From http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/5016-112.htm

I expect there will always be a small proportion of people who ‘glom on’ to a class action, just nowhere near as many as there are in the drug industry and others who benefit from it who are happy to ‘glom on’ to the money that comes from denying there are risks or for trying to cover scientific misconduct by blaming the results on patients.

Is there a consensus on this site whether tobacco is safer than Chantix? If neither are ’safe’, does that mean that the risks of the pharmaceutical alternative are acceptable?

Could patients be lying so they can glom on to a class action? Whoever heard of such a thing ;)

BTW is the consensus on this site that tobacco is safer than chantix?