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.

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

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.