Healthy Skepticism Library item: 15658
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: news
Rout M.
'Hairy time' in Merck staff's Vioxx spoof
The Australian 2009 May 21
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25514940-23289,00.html
Full text:
CONCERNS that anti-arthritis drug Vioxx caused heart attacks were spoofed as a “hairy time” by Merck & Co sales staff in a beauty salon-themed skit. But it didn’t “foil” them because “there must be more tangles to the story”.
Documents tendered to the Federal Court and released yesterday give the full detail of a light-hearted skit written by employees of Merck, Sharp and Dohme for an end-of-year celebration. The company’s marketing director for Vioxx, Penny Dobson, has denied the skit mocked health concerns about Vioxx, testifying it was to provide relief after a “tough year”.
The script features three scenes where staff refer to Merck products in the context of nails, facials and hair products. Vioxx is described as a new hair colour that has a “50 per cent reduction in serious hair colour fading for patients”.
“I’ve been HAIRING a lot of mixed reports lately about your new hair colour … what was it called again … Vitality?” one staff member says as the mock employee of Gloss, Smooth and Shine hair salon. “No, No, Vioxx,” the other character says.
“Yes … I’ve heard quite a few mixed stories about Vioxx. In fact, there was something on the radio yesterday, I think it was on Hair Highlights on the ABC – yes, and it was saying Vioxx causes heart attacks,” the salon employee character continues. “That’s pretty worrying – what’s the tangle behind that?”
The skit, tendered by the plaintiff in a class action against the US pharmaceutic giant and its Australian subsidiary, goes on to describe how some Vioxx patients with an increased risk of cardiovascular problems met criteria set by the US Food and Drug Administration – which they call the “Frizz Disaster Area” – and should be taking aspirin.
One character then plays down a study that found Vioxx increased heart attacks compared with another drug, naperoxide, saying some patients should have been on aspirin.
“Indeed 38 per cent of all MI (heart attacks) occurred in those patients who probably should have been taking aspirin,” she says. “Therefore if we remove these patients from the equation, the data showed that MI incidence was 0.3 per cent for Vioxx and 0.1 per cent for naperoxide … (Add reason for difference).”
In reply, the character of the hair salon adds: “Well did it all blow-dry over after that? … I’m sure that didn’t foil you, Merck … there must be more tangles to the story.”
Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson – representing more than 1000 Australians – claims Vioxx caused his heart attack in December 2003.
He alleges Merck knew about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx and played them down long before it voluntarily recalled the drug in September 2004.
Merck is fighting the class action, claiming it did nothing wrong. The trial continues.
