Merck and Pfizer fought a marketing battle over Cox-2 drugs

As has been reported previously on this website, (Previous article: Merck could have found out Vioxx risks earlier) Merck was less interested in improving the life of arthritis patients and more interested in improving its bottomline. While the second goal is a noble one (after all it is a business), but that goal should not come at the expense of killing and injuring people (FDA estimates that as many as 140,000 Americans have been injured by Vioxx).

Several studies have shown that Merck:

1. Did not conduct study that could have shown the side effects of work
2. Attacked any critic of Vioxx
3. Did not publish any research that showed that Vioxx was linked to heart diseases
4. Hired consultants whose only job was to defend Vioxx at medical conferences and in medical journals
5. Aggressively marketed Vioxx to patients who were least likely to benefit from it
6. Trained its sales staff to dodge all questions related to Vioxx safety and its side effects. (Related article: Why Merck did not recall Vioxx earlier?)

The New York Times is now reporting that Merck was actually fighting a Coke-Pepsi style marketing battle with Pfizer (the maker of Celebrex and Bextra, both of which are being investigated by drug agencies worldwide and will either be recalled or end up with black box warnings, as Australian drug agency has done). (Related article: Australia bans/limits Cox-2 drugs)

While Merck and other pharmaceutical companies continue to market prescription drugs aggressively directly to consumers, experts blame many deaths and injuries on such advertisements that only show the benefits, without fully highlighting the risks and side effects. In the NYT article, Merck is quoted as having said that when doctors had "misinformation" or a "lack of information" about Vioxx, the company tried to "neutralize" them.

It is important to point out that American doctors are not totally innocent either. Doctors often attend all-expenses-paid retreats sponsored by drug companies that are supposedly education seminars. Very unlikely that they will hear anything else other than the marketing pitch of a drug company. Drug companies often sponsor research and many researchers in the past have not disclosed their conflicts on interests. It is also very common for a drug company to deny permission to publish the findings if they are contrary to what the company has been saying in its advertisements or in documents submitted to the FDA. (Related article: Vioxx death responsibility lies with doctors too)

Since the recall of Vioxx in September 2004 and filing of hundreds of Vioxx class action lawsuits, many attorneys and media representatives have been able to access internal Merck documents that clearly show that Merck was simply selling a totally ineffective product that had serious side effects to patients who did not need the drug. And in doing so it was violating all ethics of medical science and normal business, so that it could make its bottom line look great. (Related article: Vioxx patients misled by Merck advertising)

Merck was so effective in misleading everyone that it even convinced smart doctors that Vioxx was a terrific drug. Dr. Robert Plasko of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, received Vioxx from Merck pharmaceutical sales representative Angie Henderson for approximately nine months in 2003. As a result of Dr. Plasko's taking Vioxx and his subsequent heart damage, Dr. Plasko is now disabled, and was forced to give up his medical practice of sixteen years as an endocrinologist. Dr. Plasko states in his suit that as a consumer and a physician, he was misled by Merck and its sales staff, and that he hopes this litigation will serve as a means to prevent such corrupt activity from happening again in the future. (Related article: All Cox-2 drugs advertised heavily by Merck and Pfizer)

In a related development, readers may recall the case of Dr. Curt Furberg, a professor at Wake Forest University, whose participation in the federal drug safety committee that is set to meet next week was in doubt because he criticized Cox-2 drugs. The FDA has consistently sided with Merck in the Vioxx recall mess. Now it is being reported that after all Professor Furberg will be participating in these deliberations where the most important decision taken will be related to likely recall of Celebrex and Bextra.

Merck's competitor Pfizer in the Coke-Pepsi style marketing war is also seriously hurt from the controversy. While it initially grabbed most of the market share from Vioxx after its recall, but after damaging information about Celebrex and Bextra came out, its sales have been hurt. There here is widespread speculation that tens of thousands of Vioxx class action lawsuit plaintiffs will drive Merck into bankruptcy, it is unclear what will happen to Pfizer. If Celebrex and/or Bextra is recalled, Pfizer could be in serious trouble. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that even before the fate of Celebrex and Bextra is decided, Pfizer plans to cut about $2 billion from its costs and to overhaul the way it markets drugs to doctors. It may be recalled that Pfizer has been warned by the FDA for misleading ads related to Celebrex and Bextra.

Recommended article: Celebrex attorneys are now seeking plaintiffs