Pfizer Doesn’t Want You To See This Video
12 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 16th, 2009 // 7:21 am
Why? The big drugmaker Pfizer says the video, which discusses its Prempro and Premarin menopause treatments and is posted on YouTube, is misleading and aimed at swaying potential jurors in future trials over the pills. So Pfizer asked a judge to order its removal, Bloomberg News reports.
The 5-minute video was posted by plaintiffs’ lawyers who recently won $78 million in damages in a Pennsylvania trial, but Pfizer argues the video violates state legal-ethics rules and threatens the integrity of pending cases, Pfizer attorneys wrote in a Common Pleas Court filing in Philadelphia, according to the news service (UPDATE: here is the Pfizer motion).
“Plaintiff’s counsel should be compelled to remove this video from the Internet and refrain from making any further inflammatory and prejudicial public statements” until the litigation is resolved, Pfizer’s lawyers wrote in their motion. The video, which is in the style of a news magazine show, features a man identified as Mike Richmond, a jury foreman in a trial already concluded, who calls Wyeth, which Pfizer recently bought, “truly despicable.” Take a look….
Lisa Van Syckel
Now, if that was Tiger Woods in the video, Pfizer would have something to worry about.
RxRaptor
As a treatment for my mothers unusually early menopause, this poison was pumped into my mothers body. She passed from pancreatic cancer right about the time that the withholding of information begun.
Isn’t it strange how Pfizer exposed this withholding of data, right around the time that it bought Wyeth?
Plausible deniability?
Then again, there’s a time to live. There’s a time to die. There’s time to meet your maker. But isn’t it strange, that as soon as you’re born, you’re dying.
Nice work Ed.
RxRaptor
riv
Treatment for menopause. Is there any time in a woman’s life that she doesn’t need to be “treated” for being female?
Sammy Seven Iron
Michael T. Scott, Esq. of REED SMITH, LLP, while possibly justifiably may find solace under Rule 3.6 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Proffesional Conduct, a Rule about as useful to protecting scumbags that have a history of denying neglect, fraud, and UN-professional conduct (Ref Wyeth refusal to
ammend horrid manufacturing facilities and processes for their $2.7M / yr Prevnar infant vaccine, until finally CDC shutdown, and decreasing the dosage by 1/2 - remember, ‘every dose counts’…… ) fails to acknowledge that the Premarin and Prempro sealed data because, from Wyeth “would make us look bad”, or the like, is no different than a spot on 60 Minutes, etc. Considering the amassed shameful and hippocritical history of Wyeth practices, there is absolutely no good reason to not inform the public by way of weblink article, in writing, in video and audio. The audio of the You Tube link had almost all of the dialect removed - 95% of the audio was nothing but birds chirping, akin to MISLEADING pharma ads with “It’s a Beautiful Morning” playing while listing a litany of negative side effects (sorry Eddie B, congrats on the royalties). How is it that real people with real experiences can’t come forward, speak, be heard, and if they are wrong, objective evidence would surely be used to quell any discrepancies. Not a GD Pennsylvania Rule 3.6, etc. Think for yourself on this one. Why, Mr. Scott, hide under the illusion of the legal version of a protected cave if you could just nip all that’s coming to you, some of which may blindside you in the bud with some real objective evidence to counter that You Tube Link?
And in the court order, the date proposed was 12/22/09. And already, unless you can read lips well, the link is useless? Do you really think it’s going to make a difference whether or not a potential juror views this video? When people hear the facts, and you are unable to sufficiently counter, YOU WILL NOT WIN THIS CASE. I’d wager your firm is already in “damage control” mode, and I sincerely wish that the penalties dished out to you are not some blow off menial penalty.
This verdict should hurt. These actions are despicable, and they will not ever end unless a judge penalizes firms with a proverbial strong axe to the neck as opposed to a slap on the wrist with a ruler.
Disgraceful. May God have mercy on all of your souls, because no one in their right mind is going to buy whatever BS you vomit in front of a jury, whether they watch the video (with audio stripped away) or not. The “pool of jurors” unfortunately for you is already tainted by instance after instance of poor practices, neglect, fraud, etc. over the past 20 years. If you’re whining about a public website, you’re already on a wayward path that will lead to a dead end.
Sammy
Sammy Seven Iron
Riv,
Not really. The HPV vaccine is unnecessary, and birth control is a choice that you make. What other treatments are you referring to?
Sammy
NotSoFast
One has to step back and examine the statements made in the video. Hormone Replacement Therapies (HRT) do not cause cancer; their use increases the risk of certain cancers. The increased risk is small however. The validity of the age and demographics of the woman chosen to be examined in the Women’s Health Initiative is also being debated. But the video says “HRT caused her cancer”. There is no way to prove it. Did the use of the HRT increase her risk of contracting a cancer? Statistically one has to say yes. But the percentage of women using HRT w/o contracting any form of estrogen related cancers is very, very high.
Am I sympathetic to the families of older woman who have died due to cancer after taking HRT? Yes, I am, and just about everyone who has had a family member die of any type of cancer is.
Former Pharma Marketing Director
Not so fast - are you kidding?
The law suit isn’t about whether or not HRT causes breast cancer, it is about the evidence that Wyeth had that they did not provide. It is about with holding information from both the Doctor and the patients which interfered with clinician and patient decision making.
In case you haven’t noticed, this is the common thread of all of these trials.
When people die, it really is too late to say “gee I am sorry”.
The video should stay, hopefully other patients will see it and realize that they have “no friends” in this and they need to realize that their doctors will sell them out just as easily as Pharma does.
Justice in MI
Former–I’m with you in principle, but, as I understand it, the lawsuit hinges on a more specific point–
Not what Pfwyeth did or didn’t do, but whether it is within legal bounds to put out a video created by plaintiffs’ lawyers–when continuing suits are in process–without identifying the source.
If I were a “real” Justice, I personally would dismiss the suit on the grounds that free speech and the public’s right to know clearly override such self-interested bids to censor–a point made by some of those quoted in Bloomberg. But there is a legal issue here that is separate from either the causality question or Pfwyeth “dismiss and distract” tactics.
World's Smallest Violin
I feel little to no sympathy for a drug giant with an annual PR budget in, I am certain, the tens of millions. Just as they are able to put out advertisements, swaying potential consumers towards their products with half-truths and the occasional outright lie, so should anyone else be able to express a counterpoint and/or just plain old call them out.
This isn’t any more biased than those old Prempro ads with Lauren Hutton or Patty LaBelle. And this *certainly* isn’t as insidious as a ghostwritten scientific article or a Wyeth-sponsored CME that shills for HRT.
None of this seems to be disputed as a matter of fact. Wyeth’s argument here can be distilled to “they shouldn’t be able to point out the bad things we’ve done.” I hardly find that compelling.
Justice in MI
Love the name, WSV. I don’t think it’s about sympathy or lack thereof. It’s about how much a firm can do that could “influence” potential jurors in cases upcoming. A stretch, in my view, but that’s the legal coat hook.
Given other thread on Prempro cases rejected, it doesn’t sound like Pfwyzer has much to worry about anyway.
Former Pharma Marketing Director
Justice, I wasn’t really talking about the legalities of having the video on Youtube. It was a general comment in the overall lawsuit..
I honestly think the youtube video should stand.
Don’t you find it absurd that a company cry’s for “justice” that has so blatantly abused justice themselves.
They wouldn’t know justice if they tripped over it..
World's Smallest Violin
Justice: I hear what you’re saying, and fundamentally I think we’re arguing the same point.
My indignation at Wyeth’s motion stems from the fact that it is hypocritical to employ an array of in-house and hired gun public relations specialists to issue press releases that put a pro-company spin on results from litigation, and then decry anyone from an opposing side for doing something analagous. It’s an issue of free speech in a public forum.
But, also, I’m amused by how cannily this video was pitched. Reed Smith and Wyeth walked right into it, if their goal was to keep the video from being publicly viewed and discussed. They just made it even more of a story with their motion. Ah well…