The Vioxx ‘V’ Squad: Reps From Another Universe
20 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // August 27th, 2008 // 2:00 pm
For your viewing pleasure, this three-part series of clips is about the ultimate training tool - the obstaclizer. Seriously. The device is supposed to help sales reps overcome hurdles to making Vioxx a success. The clips show up on a web site called VioxxDocuments, which contain myriad documents from the Vioxx litigation.
The site is run by an expert witness for plaintiffs’ lawyers, David Egilman, a clinical associate professor in community health at Brown University, who has co-authored two controversial studies about Vioxx - about ghostwriting and seeding. He tells us the clips were, at one point, on YouTube, but Merck had them pulled down. We are awaiting comment from Merck. UPDATE: Merck declined to comment.
PART ONE
PART 2
PART 3
Hat tip to Clin Psych and Pharma Law
Dan A.
Very well done- and authentic. I launched Vioxx. At that time, we were told to say to prescribers that the drug was ‘more efficacious’ that other NSAIDS, wich is a fallacy.
JC MD
I am a physician who was vioxx-ized. I feel so cheap. But the dinners were good.
thom
yea its like eggs on a train and the train will not stop.. splat!
all over your faces and you like it.
Doc
Every person in America should be required to watch these. It is a perfect example of the “Science based training and promotion” big pharma always puts forth as the way they sell drugs. These tactics have not changed in 2008, only gotten worse. Now for all those that argue about the training and professionalism of most pharma reps - these 12 minutes say it all.
Public complaining about the high cost of branded drugs? I guess all watchers can see its not all R&D costs.
Paul G
Ed, you keep getting sucked right into the plaintiff lawyers’ den. Although one doesn’t doubt these things are real, they are clearly taken out of context in an effort to embarrass one more time the whipping boy of the industry i.e. Merck.
Did you or anyone else see today’s announcement that lawyers in the big case stand to make $1.6 Billion dollars!!! The patients will get some, but nowhere near the lawyers and the paid “consultants”.
Let’s realize that just what the lawyers made is enough money to discover two new drugs (at average cost).
You are playing right into their hands.
Ed Silverman
Hi Paul,
I also posted the news about the fees for the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Anyway, I posted the videos because they’re interesting. I understand your point, but I didn’t offer any particular judgement about the contents or the message, although I confess to being a bit smarmy with the headline, but that’s only because these remind me of Star Trek on some level.
These are training videos and can be interpreted as one sees fit. I wasn’t telling anyone how to interpret them. And I mentioned the plaintiffs’ expert witness only because that person runs the site where these are warehoused.
The fact that Merck wanted them taken down, well, I sent a note to a Merck spokesman for a comment, but haven’t heard back. The video content is what it is. Everyone can watch and judge for themselves.
Regards
ed
Ima Misfit
I’m guessing that many uninitiated consumers don’t believe these videos are actually authentic. But as every pharma rep knows; they are all too real.
Corny videos are just one of many ridiculous training tools used over and over again at every single meeting attended by pharma sales reps. This is how big pharma teaches reps to lightheartedly overcome doctor’s legitimate concerns about dangerous, and all too often deadly, side effects.
Insider
LOL
What a business!
Doc
Paul g,
Doc
Paul G,
Would that there was a ‘context’ in which these ‘training’ videos made any sense or were justified. This type of ‘training’ is now the norm in big pharma.
It always makes me wonder why the pharma corps essentially have a minimum requirement of a BS,BA to interview for a sales job. Looks like Sat morning cartoons.
Alan
Doc
You are very quick to apply one example across the entire industry. Yes these videos are bad, yes they use to be more common in the industry. Keep in mind, in this case, they were done by a company that was less than forthright about the dangers of their product and patients suffered because of their arrogance.
By the same token, should we paint you with the same brush as a doctor in your town who has been sued for malpractice? You are both doctors right? Why don’t we judge based on the actions of individuals, instead of slapping a wet coat of bias on everyone?
I put no merit in a doctor judging the industry, because there is no accountability or transparency for you as a physician. When you make a mistake, how is that publicized? Please don’t even reference your State Medical Society, because time after time we learn afterwards how many issues a doctor had and how little had done about it by the Medical Sociey. How many times are you aware of malpractice of another practioner and done nothing about it?
My point is only this. This reflects on Merck and Merck alone. Just as I am confident you want your skills judged on your patient outcomes, not by some sleazy doctor who practices in the same town and gives all doctors a bad name.
Xoebe
Alan! You are the Master! You ARE THE POWER!
Your statement: “I put no merit in a doctor judging the industry, because there is no accountability or transparency for you as a physician” shazzamed the power of evil doers!
You have blasted the inept medical “professionals” and revealed them for who they truly are! Vile charlatans who only stand in the way of true medicine and the patients who desire and deserve the treatments that will do more for them than maybe the competition!
Sigh. If only marketing could reach MORE people, with less interference by “Doctors” this world would be a truly better place.
Doc
Alan,
As previously stated, I have been involved in sales and marketing in big pharma for 30+ years at various companies - and continue to be. Unfortunately, the videos from Merck are an all too typical example of the type of thing that occurs at the vast majority of pharma firms.
Anyone with experience in this area will know this is not a surprise. Big pharma, especially marketing, is really a cottage industry. Marketers and trainers from pharma corps move between companies, primarily in NJ. These same tactics and thinking move with them.
The training and marketing of big pharma has taken a nose dive over the lasat 30 years. This is also not surprising in that most companies do not look for sales people with any science background. Tha majority of newly hired sales reps have business, communications, education, etc degrees. Most have at best, one class in Biology 101 in their education. I have interviewed 50+ people in the last several years for sales rep openings- that is the current state of the business.
However, the bigger problem is that the marketers have zero science background and look at drug marketing like selling Oreo cookies.
Are 100% of sales reps and marketers in this class? No, but the majority are. Defend what you like, but the facts are not arguable.
Paul G
Bad taste does not mean something is illegal or has bad intentions.
Alan
Doc
I don’t disagree with a lot of your last post, but I still take issue with how you lump all companies into the same box.
Do I think companies can and must do a better job of educating their reps, yes. I see that change taking place in the industry. The problem I see is that there is a disparity in companies, and yet all are painted with the same brush. That can only change with a change within the industry, which I have seen the past couple of years.
As for Xoebe, obviously she really couldn’t provided useful commentary on the discussion so she mocks. Xoebe, was there something incorrect in my post you wanted to take issue with? If so, say so and lets discuss it. What can you do to shed light on physician transparency? Minus mocking the points I brought out.
Doc
Alan,
My last point revisted:
“Are 100% of sales reps and marketers in this class? No, but the majority are. Defend what you like, but the facts are not arguable.”
I hope it is changing, but not from what I see.
Bruce
What a joke. This is exactly what is wrong with pharma. They distort, redirect, and diffuse rather than addressing concerns with evidence. Their main goal was selling more on higher unachievable goals, not protecting patients or looking into the problems of this drug.
finn
I am a R.N. and I took vioxx 13 months and I had none of problems they ask about in the Calculater deal to determine how much money part of your heart is worth and the years I will lose on this earth. I really trust trused my doctor but now he has killed himself over what I don’t know. But if you had to be opened up twice in 36 hours and were given 40 units of blood and a 100 fillers while you were laying there watching the bright red blood coming out of your chest tubes. Being releaved of 40 lbs. that you really did not need to lose and a very long stay in the hospital maybe all of you would look at this differently.I was not 70 years old and this has lost me my husband because of my staying on the heart lung machine so long. They said I might have personality changes for a year, which I did I was not myself. I wanted to continue to help sick people and enjoy life in the health profession but because of their inability to tell the truth It has taken years of being there for other people away from me. Do I have a good lawyer? I started out with the Lanier Law Firm( MARK ) and god knows who my real attorney really is. My name is not on the docket in N.J. or Texas. I can only pray there is some kind of justice for me. I also have a C.P. son who I take care of and with much less energy than I had before. If there is any justice in this I can’t wait to see how all of this plays out.
Charlotte Inn
Ah patients,
the assholes between breakfast and tee time
I’d pay good money to watch the jurors as they watched this video in the MI lawsuits
bbh - dh
Some pieces of a couple of recent POSTS with an observation that the Merck Vioxx MSA MAY be headed towards Congress….. This does not necessarily reflect the view of ALL of vPEG (see next pagargarph) but certainly quite a few there and elsewhere…
First:
IF you are a vIOXX Plaintiff and wish to get involved, in addition to learning/educating/sharing – please feel free to apply:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MerckSettlement/
… a theory was advanced that should it have merit, frankly makes my stomach sick … It is one that the MSA (the agreement) was actually written so that it could then be transferred into LAW by Congress (or say most of it…) so pharma and other industry will use it to shield themselves from MASS TORTS.
That does not mean that locally one cannot sue for being run over by a car, but it WOULD mean that damage perpetuated by a drug company will have one heck of a hard time gaining any shred of adequate compensation for the rest of our lives, and our children’s also. It would certainly seem to encourage adequate testing to come out of the laboratory and into the public, and will discourage proper pharma post-marketing tracking/analysis. It will make litigation merely a fixed, product life cycle cost. By providing fixed costs and capping risk, it will then permit other reckless and too risky behavior by the pharma industry. The ramifications get worse…. unless MAJOR NOISE IS MADE to the public, the Attorney Generals, the US Supreme Court, and the best we can do to warn Congress. It will complete the “loop” and it all fits very well. I am not a radical – in fact I have quite conservative values in re to family and right/wrong – but in re to CIVIL RIGHTS of MANY kinds, I would consider myself in the liberal camp, as I DO see movement towards as I say – “peeling away our CIVIL RIGHTS like onions”.
Shall it have merit, it is one of the worst things that we have seen in our lifetimes in re to real perversion of our Legal System; with Pharma/the courts and the large firms largely in control of protecting pharma, and now looking to suggest to Congress – “we have the perfect solution – look, it’s already done… all you need to do is sign on the dotted line, and you can go tell your constituents how well you FOUGHT for TORT REFORM (actually is DEFORM) - but the PUBLIC does not, cannot yet currently differentiate between frivolous litigation (and of course we understand that) and the massive fraud and collusion taking place under the guise of “TORT REFORM”.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MerckSettlement/
Posted by Dennis Harrison (bones)
Sunday, November 09, 2008 1:42 AM EST
What I get out of CAFA is that jurisdiction for large class action is moved to Federal; that would then seem to be the first stage as it consolidates POWER centralized. Note that the STATES, by the way, ARE AGAINST PRE-EMPTION; kind of tells you that the STATES continue to be very way of Federal Power over-reaching. Some things certainly make sense from a Federal Point of view, certainly that is the case. However, in the case of TORT/PHARMA - it seems clear to me that the first step is to centralize power into the Federal Government, where it then becomes under their control how to move further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness_Act_of_2005
Then, along comes TORT REFORM - and since the PUBLIC DOES not understand what it really means, the PUBLIC thinks hot coffee/and near $50M (amt ?) award. SURE, the public opinion says, something must be done, let’s support TORT REFORM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_reform
OK, now along comes PHARMA. Things are starting to look great for Pharma.
TORT REFORM? what a great way to PUSH a private “settlement” (DEAL), surely the public at large will support such a brave effort…
OK, now we get the “settlement” (DEAL)….
The Public has been quoted with MANY mean spirited quotations (we are blood sucking thieves, we steal $ from the research for children, we steal $ from greater research efforts, etc…).
Merck poor mouths itself and declares that $5B is SUCH A LARGE amount (don’t we know where that amount gets now a days divided by so many people?).
The COURTS say - sure, we have been instructed by our Congress and House to seek TORT REFORM;
The COURTS collude (sorry, I know a lot don’t like that word…) with PHARMA and design/collude the referred “private settlement” (DEAL) that has, without question, stolen CIVIL RIGHTS up the kazoo….
BUT, then go further…. while at it… why not actually draft the MSA (”settlement” (DEAL)) so that we can then bring it to the legislative body for their signature? Sounds quick and easy enough…
And that is where it seems to be:
1 - pharma knew for a long time where this was going…
2 - the courts are only too glad to have a nice, easy way to wipe away their dockets…
3 - the legislative branch wishes (this is NOT an issue of which party) to look good to their consitutents and claim - SURE, we have WORKED VERY HARD AT TORT REFORM (i.e. signing what Merck DIRECTED for the entire industry)…. By the way, they do so via illegal “bill of attainer”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
Besides seeking JUSTICE AND FAIR COMPENSATION, a goal of 2009 needs to beat back this new realization.