<![CDATA[Consumerist: Pfizer]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Pfizer]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/pfizer http://consumerist.com/tag/pfizer <![CDATA[ Top 10 Crappiest CEOs (According To Their Employees) ]]> Glassdoor released its report of the 50 lowest-rated CEOs as determined by employee reviews on its site. I scractched out all the companies you don't care about and ended up with this list of the 10 Crappiest CEOs (of consumer-facing compaines) (according to their employees)...

Rank - Company - CEO - approval rating

10. US Postal Service - Jack Potter - 21%
9. Sun Microsystems - Jonathan I. Schwartz - 21%
8. eBay - John J. Donahoe - 20%
7. Convergys (a horrible call center company) - Dave Dougherty - 19%
6. Pfizer - Jeff Kindler - 19%
5. Sears Holdings - W. Bruce Johnson - 19%
4. RadioShack - Julian C. Day - 16%
3. Sports Authority - Doug Morton - 12%
2. United Airlines - Glenn F. Tilton 8%
1. Office Depot - Steve Odland - 7%

Does this jibe with your experience? Who you would you nominate as the worst CEO?

Glassdoor Q3 CEO Watch List Report [GlassDoor] (Photo: Epiclectic)

* only CEOs with 50 or more reviews were included.

]]>
Consumerist-5391220 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:51:19 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5391220&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Recent Class Action Lawsuits: Are You Eligible? ]]> We've heard about quite a few recent class-action settlements that you just might be eligible for, as well as cute little baby suits still looking for claimants. Products included: energy drinks, name-brand prescription drugs, and zombie microwaves.

Fuze Slenderize
Advertising for Fuze Slenderize energy drinks was allegedly misleading consumers with claims that the drinks would cause appetite suppression and/or weight loss. (Consumerist was suspicious of Fuze's advertising claims years ago.) If you bought a Slenderize drink between July 16, 2004 and April 6, 2009 (July 16, 2002 and July 15, 2004 in New Jersey) You can claim for fewer than ten bottles without proof of purchase. Fill out the form here. Deadline: July 10, 2009.

T-Moble Early Termination Fees
If you were charged a flat-rate early termination fee instead of a prorated one when canceling your T-Mobile contract between July 23, 1999 and February 19, 2009, you're eligible. However, you're also eligible if you happened to be under a T-Mobile contract with a flat-rate ETF during that period, whether you canceled the contract or not. The claim form is located here. Deadline: September 25, 2009.

450 Prescription Drugs
The suit alleges price-fixing among major pharmaceutical companies, and consumers who paid cash (between 8/1/01 and 1/23/09) or percentage-based co-pays (between 8/1/01 and 3/15/05) for any of 450 name-brand drugs (PDF link) are eligible. Evidence such as receipts or a doctor's letter is recommended, but not required. Get the claim form for your class here. Deadline: July 9, 2009.

Bextra and Celebrex

The suit claims that Bextra (which is now off the market) and Celebrex were marketed in a way that was not consistent with their FDA approval. If you paid cash or a co-pay for Bextra or Celebrex before July 29, 2005, you're eligible to file a claim. Deadline: October 23, 2009

GE Microwaves (warning: site immediately plays video with sound)
A number of GE microwave owners have experienced scary, scary problems with their appliances, including control panel failures, arcing, fires, pet deaths, property damage, and the microwaves turn themselves on for no reason. They are looking for other people who have experienced similar problems and are interested in a class action suit.

(Thanks to Top Class Actions for some of this info, and our lovely readers for the rest!)

(Photo: muffet)

]]>
Consumerist-5266298 Fri, 22 May 2009 17:41:17 EDT Laura Northrup http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5266298&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Pfizer Offers Free Medication To Unemployed Or Uninsured Patients ]]> It's hard for journalists (and bloggers) to resist a story that they can entitle "Free Viagra," and pharmaceutical company Pfizer knows it. This recent publicity stunt is still newsworthy even without that headline, because of its purpose, and the problem for drug companies that it illustrates.

Pfizer, like most of the big drug companies, already has a variety of assistance programs for people who have trouble affording Pfizer drugs. For more information about such programs, visit the Prescription Assistance Program site.

So why start a new program for the newly unemployed? Most people don't now about assistance programs, and those who never expected to find themselves without insurance may be grateful for the new publicity. Also, makers of pricey brand-name drugs are suffering in the current economic climate.

The Chicago Tribune notes:

Pfizer's program comes at a time when many drugmakers, including Pfizer, have been raising prices on their drugs, partly to offset declines in revenue as the global recession reduces the number of prescriptions people can afford to fill.

The 70-plus drugs covered in the program include several diabetes drugs and some of Pfizer's top money makers, from cholesterol fighter Lipitor and painkiller Celebrex to fibromyalgia treatment Lyrica and Viagra for impotence. Drugs from several other popular classes such as antibiotics, antidepressants, antifungal treatments, heart medications, contraceptives and smoking cessation products also are included. Cheaper generic versions are available for quite a few of the drugs.

It's worth pointing out again that yes, many of these drugs are available as generics, or there are similar generic medications that treat the same issue.

Prescription Assistance Program
Pfizer offers free Viagra, Lipitor and other drugs to uninsured, jobless Americans [Chicago Tribune] (Thanks, HiPwr!)
(Photo: mundolaura)

]]>
Consumerist-5254712 Thu, 14 May 2009 17:38:27 EDT Laura Northrup http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5254712&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Why Do These Commercials For Chantix Not Mention The Drug? At All? ]]> Our sister publication Consumer Reports Health has posted a new video in their AdWatch series, which examines direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising. This time they're examining some "stealth" advertising for the quit-smoking drug Chantix.

CRH says that Chantix is an effective drug — but its commercials never mention its name. Why not? Well, no one knows — but what we do know is that if you mention the drug you have to mention the side effects — and the side effects of Chantix are pretty serious.

Last year, the drug's label was updated to include a warning about potential psychiatric effects of the drug which include "changes in behavior, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal ideation and attempted and completed suicide"— and CRH says that the FAA has actually banned pilots from taking the drug because of the severity of these potential side effects.

So if you see an advertisement that looks like a PSA, stop and think.

CRH says:

When you see an ad or Web site with that PSA-like tone, listen or look to see who's sponsoring it. If it's a drug company, and you decide to visit the site, realize that the information, however useful, is there to help promote a drug. And be wary of the interactive options that these sites offer. For example, a Share Your Story section on the FibroCenter site requires you to sign a release basically allowing Pfizer to change your whole story to make it more "commercially viable." So much for an authentic online community.

As far as Chantix goes, about a year ago, New York Magazine had an interesting first person account from someone who had a bad experience with the drug.

The most unsettling thing about sleeping on Chantix is that I never felt like I was truly asleep. Some part of me remained on guard. It was more like lucid dreaming, what I thought it might feel like to be hypnotized. And it didn't entirely go away come morning. As I showered, shaved, and scrambled into clothes, I tried to shake a weird, paranoid sense that I'd just been psychically raped by a household appliance.

Mental air conditioner rape aside... it did help him quit smoking, before he started hallucinating and smashed up his entire apartment. Chantix isn't for everyone, it seems.

Pfizer and Chantix: Stealth advertising at its finest [Consumer Reports Health]

]]>
Consumerist-5155424 Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:19:57 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5155424&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Lipitor-shilling drug maker Pfizer has announced ... ]]> Lipitor-shilling drug maker Pfizer has announced that they will be buying rival Wyeth for $68 billion. [WSJ Health Blog]

]]>
Consumerist-5139296 Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:35:35 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5139296&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Boner Drug Ads To Run Exclusively During Programs Targeted To Adults? ]]> Tired of your kids asking you what "erectile dysfunction" is? You're not alone.

Ads for impotency drugs such as Pfizer Inc's Viagra have drawn the ire of lawmakers and others for their suggestive content, says Reuters, prompting a lobbying group to announce that the ads "should" be shown during "television programs or in publications that target adults." They also promised to disclose when actors were being used in drug commercials.

Some lawmakers are skeptical of the promises — because they are voluntary and can't be enforced by the FDA.

The FDA regulates industry advertising but has said that it lacks the staff and funding to review every piece of marketing companies put out.

Democratic lawmakers have been especially skeptical of pharmaceutical advertisements that directly target consumers and have used hearings to highlight some worrisome practices, such as using flashy graphics and other techniques to distract from a drug's risks.

"On one hand, PhRMA has taken our Committee's concerns seriously ... on the other hand, some of these changes are merely a rewording of prior policy that does nothing to increase consumer protection," said Rep. Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who heads the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative panel.

"Our investigation will continue, and we will be keeping a watchful eye on how well the industry follows these guidelines," he said in a statement.

Drugmakers to note actors, make other ad changes [Reuters]

]]>
Consumerist-5106851 Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:28:40 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5106851&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ New Lipitor Ads Mercifully Free Of Fake Doctors ]]> Well, it seems that Pfizer is ready to move on from that embarrassing "Dr. Jarvik is not actually licensed to practice medicine" kerfuffle back in February. The company pulled its Lipitor spots after Congress became very interested in whether or not the ads were misleading the public into believing that Dr. Jarvik was qualified to offer medical advice — and that he was really rowing that boat. Now, theWall Street Journal has a tantalizing preview of the new "Dr. Jarvik Free" Lipitor ad. The spot features a regular person named John — a heart attack survivor who urges you to learn from his example and be more proactive about controlling your cholesterol (with Lipitor, damn it! Lipitor!).

"When we did testing with consumers, what we found out was John really resonated with them," said Jim Sage, senior director and leader of the Lipitor marketing team at Pfizer.

The Wall Street Journal describes the commercial as "visually similar to some of the Jarvik ads, in that it shows Mr. Erlendson in an outdoorsy setting, biking and picnicking by the water with his wife and son — a notable ad with Mr. Jarvik showed a body double rowing a racing scull across a lake."

Rather than impress you with his resume (John is actually a talent agent, if you must know), the new Lipitor pitchman encourages you to be smarter than he was. Silly, John. He tried to control his cholesterol with diet and exercise. What was he thinking?:

"Talk about a wake-up call. I had a heart attack at 57," Mr. Erlendson says in the commercial's opening, in which he's filmed in close-up and black-and-white. "My doctor told me I should have been doing more for my high cholesterol. What was I thinking? But now I trust my heart to Lipitor."


Pfizer Brings Back Lipitor Ads — Without Robert Jarvik
[WSJ Health Blog]
Pfizer Drops Celebrity Pitch in New Lipitor Spots [WSJ via Gawker]

]]>
Consumerist-5044262 Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:22:59 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5044262&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Round 12: Diebold Vs Pfizer ]]> Pfizer hires stunt doubles to row for their not-a-physician (former) pitchman Dr. Robert Jarvik and this severely upsets Congress. They also don't want you to use cheaper generics. And produce potentially misleading and sketchy commercials about Celebrex. And they also make car sick medicine for dogs.

Diebold makes crappy voting machines that your grandmother could tamper with.

This is a post in our Worst Company In America 2008 series. The companies nominated for this honor were chosen by you, the readers. Keep track of all the goings on at consumerist.com/tag/worst-company-in-america/

]]>
Consumerist-372889 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:19:51 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=372889&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Say Goodbye To Dr. Jarvik As He and His Stunt Double Row Into The Sunset ]]> fakerowing.jpgWeary of all the "fake rowing" controversy, Pfizer has canned Dr. Robert Jarvik (the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart) as a spokesperson for their blockbuster cholesterol drug, Lipitor.

The "way in which we presented Dr. Jarvik in these ads has, unfortunately, led to misimpressions and distractions," Pfizer's president of world-wide pharmaceuticals, Ian Read, said. "Going forward, we commit to ensuring there is greater clarity in our advertising regarding the presentation of spokespeople."

Jarvik, who wore a white coat in the ads even though he isn't a licensed physician, and used a stunt-double for the rowing scenes in one commercial, isn't going quietly. He's issued a statement of his own. In it, Dr. Jarvik defends his use of a stunt double (The insurance company made him do it! Really!) and mourns his lost job:

I spent most of my summer vacation time during high school on the water, sailing, rowing, fishing, and scuba diving. At the time the ad was filmed, I was certainly fit enough to row for the shoot. I trained to row for it, and I intended to do so. But at the last minute, I was informed that the insurance carrier for the shoot would not permit me to row because the water temperature in the mountain lake at that time of year was about 40 degrees — so cold that if I had an accident, I could drown within minutes because of hypothermia. So the production company hired a rower experienced with that kind of racing shell for the distant shots. It never occurred to me that anyone would consider this dishonest. The message remains: heart health.

Recently, Pfizer chose to stop running the ads, through which I was able to appeal to so many viewers to pay attention to their heart health and to ask their doctors about Lipitor. My message has been sincere and correct — Lipitor can indeed help prevent heart disease in many millions of people, a great many of whom are not presently taking any cholesterol-lowering medication.

The full statement is can be read at the WSJ Health Blog. We've yet to hear back from as to why Sally Field (also not a licensed physician) is qualified to shill Boniva. And hey... do those Valtrex people really have herpes? The Consumerist respectfully declines to investigate.

Jarvik: My Credibility Was Justified and Fairly Represented [WSJ Health Blog]

]]>
Consumerist-361183 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:29:26 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=361183&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Congress Asks Pfizer: Why Is Dr. Jarvik Qualified To Pitch Lipitor? ]]> Dr. Robert Jarvik is the inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, right? You know that because he's the pitch-man for Lipitor, a heavily advertised cholesterol drug. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why inventing an artificial heart qualifies the man to pitch a drug?

From Reuters (emphasis ours)

A U.S. House of Representatives committee said on Monday it was probing Pfizer Inc (PFE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) advertisements that feature heart specialist Robert Jarvik pitching its blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor.

Democrats on the House Energy & Commerce Committee said they were worried the widely seen commercials may mislead consumers. The probe is part of an investigation into celebrity endorsements of prescription medications, the lawmakers said.

"We are concerned that consumers may misinterpret the health claims of a prescription drug promoted in a direct-to-consumer advertisement utilizing a celebrity physician," top committee Democrats said in a letter to Pfizer.

The letter also said the lawmakers were "concerned that Dr. Jarvik's qualifications may be misinterpreted in this advertisement campaign given that he may not be a practicing physician with a valid license in any state."

Really? No license to practice medicine? The WSJ Health Blog explains:
NBC's science guru Robert Bazell wrote last year that while Jarvik is an M.D., he doesn't have "the strongest credentials." His grades as an undergrad at Syracuse University weren't good enough for U.S. med school, so he attended the University of Bologna in Italy, leaving after two years. In 1976, Jarvik graduated from the University of Utah's med school, but he never did an internship or practiced medicine, Bazell wrote.
...and of course here's Pfizer's response:
Dr. Jarvik is a respected health care professional and heart expert. Dr. Jarvik, inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, knows how imperative it is for patients to do everything they can to keep their heart working well. Furthermore, the advertising advises consumers to speak to their physicians about their heart health. The communication in the advertising helps educate consumers that it is important to keep the heart healthy including, if necessary, using medications that have been proven to maintain heart health.
That's all well and good, but can someone explain why Sally Field is qualified to shill Boniva? Is it because she has bones?

Congress to Pfizer: Why is Robert Jarvik the Lipitor Man? [WSJ Health Blog]
U.S. House panel says probing Pfizer Lipitor ads [Reuters]

]]>
Consumerist-342867 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:26:04 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=342867&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Pfizer Launches Campaign To Warn Users Away From Generic Competitor ]]> con_cholesterolloweringdrug.jpg Pfizer is in panic mode about its rapid decline in Lipitor sales—in the last 18 months, it has dropped from 40% of the market for cholesterol-lowering drugs to 30%, and likely to drop further—so it's launched a big media-blitz to convince people not to switch to simvastatin, the generic version of its name-brand competitor, Zocor. Zocor was more expensive than Lipitor, so Pfizer had nothing to worry about for years—but then Zocor lost its patent protection last year, and now doctors are switching patients from Lipitor over to Zocor's generic twin to save money.

One of strongest claims Pfizer is making is that patients who switch have a higher risk of death, but the in-house study they cite is being criticized by doctors:

But independent researchers say that limitations in the study, which was conducted by Pfizer's own researchers, gives it little predictive power about what will happen to patients who take simvastatin instead of Lipitor. And they say the study is far less important than large clinical trials that have shown simvastatin's effectiveness at reducing cholesterol.
Pfizer is also running print and broadcast ads that skirt the details by simply claiming that not all cholesterol-lowering drugs are the same, and that there is no generic version of Lipitor—both statements of fact, but possibly irrelevant for many patients who would do just fine on generic Zocor.

Of course, your doctor will know better than a blog whether you should switch:

For patients with extremely high cholesterol, Lipitor may be a better choice. An 80-milligram daily dose of Lipitor, the top dose, can reduce cholesterol by up to 60 percent, compared with about 50 percent for an 80-milligram dose of simvastatin, also the top dose."

"Maker of Lipitor Digs In to Fight Generic Rival" [New York Times]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-319145 Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:42:36 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=319145&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Controversial Ad Implies Celebrex Is As Safe As OTC Painkillers ]]> A new ad for Celebrex, a prescription painkiller related to Vioxx, has come under fire for implying that Celebrex is as safe as non-prescription painkillers such as ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) and naproxen (Aleve.) A consumer group has written a letter to the FDA requesting that they ban the ad, claiming that it contains "false or misleading statements."

"The overall purpose of the ad is to make it appear, contrary to scientific evidence, that the cardiovascular dangers of Celebrex are not greater than those of any of the other Nsaid painkillers," the letter said, referring to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. "Further, it asserts that certain gastrointestinal problems are, if anything, less frequent with Celebrex than with two popular over-the-counter (OTC) painkillers."
The ad, which is two-and-a-half minutes long (Pfizer was the only sponsor of the program on which it aired), can be viewed at Celebrex.com. The ad marks Celebrex's return to advertising after a two year hiatus following Vioxx's withdrawal from the market due to dangerous cardiovascular side-effects.

It's hard to see how Pfizer can defend the ad; it's pretty obviously meant to suggest that Celebrex is as safe or nearly as safe as Motrin and Aleve—even if it doesn't come right out and say it.

From Celebrex's site:

Lately, there has been some confusion about arthritis pain treatments. It is important to know that there are risks with all pain medicines, including the 3 most common NSAIDs: CELEBREX, naproxen, and ibuprofen. In fact,the FDA requires all these NSAID pain relievers, including CELEBREX, to have the same cardiovascular warning.
Far creepier is the screen shot we took of the add, which shows a teacup created from what appears to be phrase: "the chance of having a heart attack or stroke... illegible...ibuprofen or naproxen may be the same as Celebrex." Pfizer's spokesperson claims the ad does not compare Celebrex to over-the-counter drugs. —MEGHANN MARCO

Celebrex Commercial Draws Criticism [NYT]



]]>
Consumerist-251100 Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:10:12 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=251100&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Pfizer Sued For Marketing Viagra As A "Party Drug" ]]> From the Washington Post:
    An AIDS organization sued Pfizer Inc. on Monday over ads the group says encourage use of Viagra as a party drug. The group said recreational use of the drug furthers the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

    The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, calls Pfizer's ads for the impotence drug false and misleading....
    The nonprofit group alleges the marketing of Viagra has fostered an increase in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Studies have found the drug is used _ illegally _ in conjunction with crystal methamphetamine to form a party drug "cocktail."...
    The advertisements in question featured younger-looking men than did earlier Viagra ads that used retired Sen. Bob Dole, then in his 70s, as a pitchman. Myers said the newer ads imply the drug is meant to enhance the sexual experience and not to treat a medical condition.

Pfizer has denied that it promotes recreational use of Viagra. The lawsuit seeks to halt the advertisements and force Pfizer to "undertake a public information campaign on the dangers of misusing and abusing the prescription drug.Furthermore, it seeks an unspecified amount to cover an increase in treatment costs borne by the nonprofit group, which runs free treatment clinics." For what it's worth, we're all for cutting back on those Viagra ads. They're so...lame. —MEGHANN MARCO

AIDS Group Sues Pfizer Over Viagra Ads [Washington Post]

]]>
Consumerist-230903 Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:29:49 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=230903&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Coming Soon: Schizophrenics on Viagra ]]> wilford-brimley-crop.jpgThat's right, Pfizer, of Viagra-fame has set its sights on a different illness, schizophrenia. "Researchers at Pfizer are using insights into Viagra to design experimental drugs that may improve on Zyprexa, the best- selling schizophrenia remedy from Eli Lilly & Co., with $4.2 billion in sales last year."

Zyprexa is allegedly dangerous, causing serious side-effects such as diabetes, and Eli Lily has been the target of several lawsuits.

But, Viagra? Seriously?

"Starting in 1998, company researchers began probing the role that a family of enzymes called phosphodiesterases play in the human body, says Martin Jefson, a Pfizer scientist. Viagra works by inhibiting one of the enzymes in the group."

Right. So you're going to give the schizophrenics hard-ons? Won't that just make the voices talk dirty?

"Preliminary studies suggest Pfizer's new treatment may provide an advance, the company's scientists say. They point to experiments in lab rodents bred to have traits that mimic antisocial human behavior. These findings show the drug may help patients feel more engaged in their surroundings than do the current treatments."

Sounds like horny rodents to me.

Viagra's Enzyme Action May Give Pfizer Schizophrenia Advance

]]>
Consumerist-202292 Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:05:48 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=202292&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ The News Sexually Assualts the Senses ]]> sexycigarette.jpg• New! Baby-no-Tears Nicorette patch! [LAT] "J & J to Buy Pfizer Consumer Health Unit"
• Sleepy Comcast tech makes it to the NYT biz section. What's next for people who post documentation of bad customer service? White House dinner invites? [NYT] "Your Call Is Important to Us. Please Stay Awake."]
• But, it looks like the NYT cribbed their Comcast article from this AP news story, itself cribbed from The Philadelphia Inquirer. That's some heavy lifting there, guys.
• Further proof of how a healthy hatred between advertising and editorial staff is good for business. [NYT] "Marketers Say They Pay for Play in News Media"
• Myspace just needs to stop raping children. [NYT] "A Lesson for Parents on 'MySpace Madness"
• Minions of Cinderfella? [New Orleans City Business] "Transvestite crime gangs pester Magazine Street owners"

]]>
Consumerist-183302 Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:29:36 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=183302&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Clinical Drug Trials, Bought And Paid For ]]> clinicaltrial.jpgWhat a shock: when a major pharmaceutical company sponsors a study comparing the effectiveness of its product over its competitors, they aren't paying to be trumped. They're stacking the deck.

When companies like Eli Lilly or Pfizer sponsor a study, they almost invariably come out on top as more effective than their rivals. Comparatively, federal studies often show that drugs not under patent are the most effective in treating illnesses.

Studies sponsored by drug companies try to stiff the competition by using too low dosages on competitors' drugs, or very specific statistical or clinical wording to make their drug shine through.

So doctors depend on clinical studies to prescribe the right medicine, but those clinical studies are essentially advertisements Well well well. First diseasemongering, now buying clinical trials off. What will the pharmaceutical industry think up next?

Drug studies skewed toward study sponsors [Washington Post]

]]>
Consumerist-167469 Mon, 17 Apr 2006 04:44:33 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=167469&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Television Stations Airing Seeded PR News Reports ]]> yourmessagehere.jpgYou might remember last month's Wal-Mart blogging scandal, in which it came to light that Wal-Mart was feeding information to bloggers. Many bloggers were posting the propaganda wholesale without attributing the (obviously) subjective source. Slimy MSM toads chortled as a chink in blogging's armor appeared: why, mainstream media is objective. They'd never betray the precious sanctity of their journalistic integrity, as holy and binding as stone tablets handed down from YHWH. They would never simply ejaculate PR propaganda into our faces wholesale — they were better than that.

Huh. So riddle me this. If mainstream journalism is impervious to the temptation of recycling company propaganda as a breaking news story, why is it that 77 television stations aired fake news reports last year alone? Companies like Pfizer, General Motors and Capital One produced video news releases — fake news reports designed to non-obviously advertise their products and services — and a large number of television stations aired them without ever mentioning that these came from these companies' public relations firms.

Not only that, but the VNRs in question were often outright lying. One General Motors VNR claimed that GM had the first automobile website... which is simply untrue.

The study, released by the Center for Media and Democracy, prompted F.C.C. commissioner Jonathan S. Adelman to refer to it as "a disgrace to American journalism." Yeah, sounds about right, but who's really surprised?

77 TV stations aired 'fake news reports' [Raw Story]

]]>
Consumerist-165748 Fri, 07 Apr 2006 06:07:13 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=165748&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Inhalable Insulin Approved by the FDA ]]> This is really good news for diabetics:

Federal regulators Friday approved the first inhaled insulin treatment, offering millions of diabetics a chance to ease the grueling ritual of repeated daily injections.

Called Exubera, the drug allows patients to control their blood-sugar levels by inhaling a fine insulin powder through a flashlight-size device. The drug, to be marketed by Pfizer Inc., could reduce or eliminate the need for before-meal insulin shots.

Despite the inhaler's large size and some concerns about the safety of the drug, which causes a slight decrease in patients' breathing capacity, Exubera could change the way diabetes is treated.

"Being able to inhale something, if it works, would make life so much easier," said 45-year-old Laurie Dreyer Hadley of Roseville, Calif., who wasn't bothered by the inhaler's size. "I have the world's biggest purse to carry my insulin supplies."

The Food and Drug Administration approved Exubera only for adults with diabetes. Pfizer plans to conduct a three-year study on children.

It's also been approved for use within Europe, making it one of the few synchronous approvals of a new drug in both America and Europe. Let's hope that the safety concerns are ironed out and this can be marketed to children soon: although it's great that adults will have to undergo less painful objections, we think everyone would like to save kids as many tears as possible by minimizing the necessity for jabbing them with sharp needles on a daily basis. Better yet, let's make this in Flintstone form as soon as possible, Pfizer!

]]>
Consumerist-151544 Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:23:49 EST consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=151544&view=rss&microfeed=true