Part Two: The Vioxx Scandal: How Big Pharma Killed More Americans Than Vietnam

Robert and Kaveh conclude the thrilling sort of how Merck killed 55,000 Americans with Vioxx and then convinced the media they were the good guys somehow. Sources: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-medical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data/ https://archive.is/Trdy2#selection-695.1-723.182 https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck-manipulated-science-about-drug-vioxx https://web.archive.org/web/20170409143210/https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/how-corporations-corrupt-science.pdf https://www.masslive.com/news/2010/06/scott_reuben_a_former_baystate.html https://www.jci.org/articles/view/38430 https://archive.is/Yjj91#selection-835.0-993.212 https://www.vice.com/en/article/fraud-misconduct-mistakes-this-blog-finds-the-stories-behind-retracted-papers/ https://www.anesthesiologynews.com/Policy-Management/Article/03-09/Fraud-Case-Rocks-Anesthesiology-Community/12634?ses=ogst https://www.anesthesiologynews.com/Policy-Management/Article/03-09/Fraud-Case-Rocks-Anesthesiology-Community/12634?ses=ogs https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2019/the-pain-gap/ https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=jcred https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=jcred https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=lclr https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1234&context=lclr Nesi, Tom. Poison Pills: The Untold Story of the Vioxx Drug Scandal (p. 31). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. See omnystudio.com/listener https://omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed Human.

• 0:04Speaker 01

  Games on a break? Don't doom scroll. Try rips on Underdog. Buy a digital pack, rip it open, and reveal a real, physical card. Football, basketball, even Pokemon. Packs start at just $5. Ship it straight to your door or sell it back instantly at full market value. Max value up to $125,000. Download Underdog and get in on the chase. Deposit $5, get five free packs. Real rips, real cards, real cash. Only on Underdog. Unleash your dog. 18+, terms apply. Top grails are extremely rare.

• 0:35Robert Evans?

  Picture this. You're listening to the Sniffy's Cruising Confessions podcast and suddenly, wait, what did they just say? Well, the questions raised in those show-stopping moments will be answered in the all-new bonus series, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions: Bedside Manor. Hosts Gabe and Chris will dive deep on a specific topic covered in that week's Tuesday episode. From sexual health and HIV prevention to finding the right doctor. Listen to this special bonus series, Sniffy's Cruising Confessions: Bedside Manor, now on the iHeart Radio app or wherever you get podcasts. Sponsored by Healthy Sexual from Gilead Sciences.

• 1:06Speaker 03

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:38Speaker 04

  Call Zone Media.

• 1:41Robert Evans?

  Oh, we are back. Uh, this is Behind the Bastards, a podcast with Dr. Kavehoda and Robert Evans, where Sophie is out of the house right now. So, you know, we're just...

• 1:56Speaker 05

  The boys.

• 1:57Robert Evans?

  Just the boys, no girls allowed.

• 2:01Speaker 05

  Boys rule.

• 2:01Robert Evans?

  Except for the listeners, that's like half our listeners. Please keep listening, ladies.

• 2:04Speaker 05

  Sorry, I'm so sorry.

• 2:05Robert Evans?

  We're, we're, we're, we apologize terribly.

• 2:07Speaker 05

  We're trying to be better, I apologize. We didn't mean that.

• 2:10Robert Evans?

  We didn't mean that. Just like Merck didn't mean to kill all those people that they're about to kill. Uh, thanks part to utilizing Dorothy Hamill's star appeal.

• 2:19Speaker 05

  Poor Dorothy.

• 2:20Robert Evans?

  Poor Dorothy, she really did not. Again, it's one of those things where it's like, we just shouldn't have pharmaceutical ads, uh, like the way that we have them. Uh, because you can't, Dorothy Hamill's was a great figure skater. Nothing in her life prepared her to adequately vet whether or not Vioxx was a safe medication to advertise. What are you like, we can't, we can't put that on Dorothy Hamill?

• 2:44Speaker 05

  No, no part of her training, of her many hours, prepared her to look critically at the, the data.

• 2:51Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 2:51Speaker 05

  That was available to her. What was available to her? Some of it wasn't even available to her.

• 2:56Robert Evans?

  She wasn't getting up at four in the morning every day as a like adolescent girl to have like the Cox2 enzyme explained to her, like.

• 3:04Speaker 05

  No, no, that was like me, not her. We had different paths, different journeys.

• 3:09Robert Evans?

  And you're a terrible figure skater.

• 3:11Speaker 05

  Not that bad.

• 3:12Robert Evans?

  Okay, I have never seen you figure skate. I've never seen you figure skate. Can you, can you do a sow cow?

• 3:17Speaker 05

  Maybe, uh, sure. Is that like a skateboarding move?

• 3:21Robert Evans?

  Yeah, probably.

• 3:22Speaker 05

  Yeah, I can do it then.

• 3:23Robert Evans?

  This has been Skate Talk with Robert and Kappa, two people who probably don't skate.

• 3:32Robert Evans?

  So when we laughed our heroes at Vioxx, uh, they just latched upon the brilliant idea of having Dorothy Hamill sell Vioxx. If you've been wondering how tens of millions of your fellow countrymen could be convinced to vote for a guy like Trump, just remember that an awful lot of them saw a video of a figure skater promising she knew a solution to their chronic pain issues. And desperate for relief, millions of people followed her to their demise.

• 3:57Robert Evans?

  That, that really does explain a lot. Now, in fairness, very few people are doctors. It is unreasonable to expect people who are hurting and in some cases literally being driven mad by pain to personally overcome the weight of a multimillion dollar ad campaign and all of the science washing that a big pharmaceutical company can do. In fact, during the early years of Vioxx's success, it would have seemed as if COX-2 inhibitors were medical marvels backed by the best science. And it would have seemed that if you were someone who did what should be like the responsible amount of reading on this subject, not like the amount of reading that we could expect from like a research scientist, because research scientists who were responsible knew the dangers.

• 4:39Robert Evans?

  But if you were, say, like, a normal educated person who's like, oh, well, I'm going to read a paper of record and they're reporting on these new drugs written by a medical doctor interviewing other medical doctors, that's really all you as a layman should be expected to do to try to deter, like, figure out, you know, how safe a medication is. And if you were doing that with Vioxx, you would have walked away misinformed. And this brings us to one of the chief medical merchants of Vioxx Disinfo, a Harvard Medical School professor named Dr. Jerome Groupman. He had embarked on a career as what you might call a professional semi-celebrity doctor, authoring articles for The New Yorker about health and the pharmaceutical industry, which he does today.

• 5:22Robert Evans?

  Dr. Groupman is not someone who you would call the crank. He served in the advisory board of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Association. He was the Dina and Raphael Recanati Chair of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. He'd worked at a high level for the FDA and was a listed author on some 150 papers. One of his books had been adapted into a TV show, Gideon's Crossing, which I didn't expect to run into a Gideon's Crossing reference. Not familiar with that one. On this episode. It wasn't great. As Tom Nessie writes in the book Poison Pills, "Even among top-level physicians who are generally known as opinion or thought leaders, Groupman stands out. It was no small matter, therefore, when he wrote a lengthy article for The New Yorker in June of 1998 entitled 'Super Aspirin: New"

• 6:07Robert Evans?

  Arthritis drug Celebra. Celebra was the name for the drug later on as Celebrex and very close in composition to Vioxx. The article had been carefully authenticated by the famous fact checking department of The New Yorker, which has an almost perfect record of verifying every piece of information the magazine publishes. Like Hamel, Groupman began his discussion of super aspirin with a personal story. He himself had suffered debilitating pain brought on by arthritis developed while training for the Boston Marathon. Despite years of searching for relief, he had found no satisfactory remedy. Now a remarkable new class of drugs was offering hope to people like him and millions of others. And Groupman provided the anecdotal story of a firefighter from Nebraska, whose arthritis had been alleviated miraculously, thanks to super aspirin.

• 6:49Robert Evans?

  A responsible scientist would note that the anecdotal evidence was more fit for a pharmaceutical commercial than an article in The New Yorker by a doctor. But Dr. Groupman did speak with other medical experts, like Harvard's Dr. Lee Simon, who had a seat on the FDA's Arthritis Advisory Committee and had been part of an FDA panel to evaluate how to approve super aspirants. This probably shouldn't have been allowed to happen because while he was sitting on that FDA panel deciding how to approve these medications, Dr. Simon was also a paid employee of Searl, conducting clinical trials for Celebrex. He did not disclose this conflict of interest, and Dr. Groupman's article did not make any note of this fact that might have compromised a source's objectivity.

• 7:33Speaker 05

  That's actually pretty shocking, I have to say.

• 7:34Robert Evans?

  That's real bad.

• 7:35Speaker 05

  Because, I mean, I know it's not a medical journal that he's writing in, but that is like-

• 7:41Robert Evans?

  It's The New Yorker, though.

• 7:42Speaker 05

  I mean, yeah, you would think he would know, he should know better. Like, that is, if you write anything, I wrote a piece in the BMJ recently, and I had to disclose everything, including who I was voting for.

• 7:55Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 7:55Speaker 05

  You know, in the election. So it's like, and who I donated money to in the election. So that's pretty shocking to me that, like, they did not require that.

• 8:03Robert Evans?

  They didn't require that. It's unclear to me if Groupman knew that Dr. Simon was a paid employee of Searl, but I don't think Groupman is doing as much of his due diligence as he ought to. What Simon is doing is obviously the more shady of the thing, but it's one of those, this is what I say when I'm like- Like you really, I just made that comment about like people being led by a figure skater. But like, again, if you're, if you're doing your research, you could still get misled about this stuff, right?

• 8:29Speaker 05

  Absolutely. I mean, by a Harvard doctor, I mean, if COVID has done nothing else, it has also raised some doubts about, you know, the, the reputation of places here in the Bay Area like UCSF and Stanford, where a lot of, you know, anti-vaccine cranks seem to be coming out of. So like, it's not totally shocking to me that it's Harvard, you know? But I could absolutely see the danger in someone with a name that big. The H-bomb you're dropping there, leading people to, to believe this, this, in New York.

• 9:00Robert Evans?

  Must be right.

• 9:01Speaker 05

  Intellectual elites, you know, telling them all to believe the, the safety of it.

• 9:06Robert Evans?

  Yeah. And, and Simon's quotes in The New Yorker are, it's one of those things, he's really relying a lot on the fact that he's this fancy Harvard doctor, because the shit he is actually saying in this article is shit no doctor should ever say. He described Celebrex as incredible and told Dr. Groupman that, "Unique among all other medications ever created, it had no side effects whatsoever."

• 9:29Speaker 05

  Oh, come on, man.

• 9:30Robert Evans?

  He specifically stated, "There are no side effects," which, those don't exist. You might not experience side effects, but someone will. There is no drug that has zero side effects of any kind. It's not a drug if it's that way.

• 9:44Speaker 05

  If I am doing the safest procedure in the world, I am never, ever going to say this is no risk. Cause that's like jinxing it. Why would you do that? You never do that. It's just stupid and it's untrue.

• 9:55Robert Evans?

  There's no zero.

• 9:56Speaker 05

  Shocking. I mean, this is maybe.

• 9:58Robert Evans?

  That's a big old red flag.

• 9:59Speaker 05

  Wow. Yeah.

• 10:00Robert Evans?

  And this is, this is, I think, where it gets into like, the value of actually having a higher level of like, kind of medical, like medical, even training may, may not be totally the right word, but like, word, but like in school. So that, because that's the sort of thing, it, it is easy to like, train people, to have people in general, laymen, be aware of like, oh, if I see that, if I see somebody claiming there are zero side effects for anyone of this medication, that's something you shouldn't, that's sketchy, you know?

• 10:27Speaker 05

  Absolutely.

• 10:28Robert Evans?

  So as Nessie notes, this should have been a massive and immediate red flag, just as we noted. But yeah, Dr. Groupman's article cited other medical experts making similarly dubious claims. He quoted another Harvard professor, Dr. Clifford Saper, as saying super aspirin might hold the key to treating Alzheimer's. Now, this is a case where there was not evidence that it had efficacy treating Alzheimer's. Dr. Saper had a theory that inflammation in the brain caused by injured neurons led to swelling that damaged brains, and that as a result, Vioxx might help, right? And that's a perfectly valid thing to want to test, right? But you shouldn't go out in an article and be like, "This might cure Alzheimer's," based on that, because that's just a theory, right?

• 11:08Speaker 05

  And you know, and it's read, it's read by people understandably, who are going to then relate it to somebody else as, "This is what it does." This is like, we think it does this, and like, there's so many steps. There's so many steps. There's years of steps between point A and point B in that.

• 11:27Robert Evans?

  Yep, and yeah, so, quote, "Dr. Saper said that Celabreks promised to break open the vicious cycle of inflammation in Alzheimer's. Quite an astonishing statement in and of itself, and even more so since he did not cite results of a single human study. Yet the claim is part of an age-old school of medical thinking that holds that logic and what makes sense or rational therapy should dictate the practice of medicine. But rational therapy needs to be buttressed by randomized controlled human trials to determine what is and what is not effective treatment." That's from the book Poison Pills. Now, theorizing like Saper did is of course part of the medical process, but maybe not one that should be presented to the public in a widely read article, where like, people who've got loved ones suffering from Alzheimer's are going to be like, "Oh, my God, a miracle drug might be coming through."

• 12:09Robert Evans?

  No, even if it works, it's fucking 15 years out, or whatever, like, from, you know. Groupman's article also wildly exaggerated the harms of existing NSAIDs like Motrin and Advil, failing to discuss newer versions that had been approved and came with fewer of the side effects that so-called super aspirin was meant to avoid. In his article, Groupman cited the work of Dr. James Fries, a professor at Stanford at length. Fries himself claims Groupman distorted his research in order to make claims that Fries was not making about- Cox two inhibitors. Now, Dr. Grootman was not being bribed by Merck, nor did he violate the law or medical ethics in any way that I'm aware of, other than writing a bad article. He fucked up. And part of why he fucked up was, in my opinion,

• 12:51Robert Evans?

  he was looking to merge developing medical science with magazine pop science in a way that's not wildly different from what Malcolm Gladwell is going to be doing a few years later. Right? I think that's irresponsible, but not malicious or outright criminal. Right? And we are talking about some people who did outright criminal acts in this. I want to make it clear. I am not accusing Dr. Grootman of doing anything criminal. The same can not.

• 13:13Speaker 05

  But it's a slippery slope.

• 13:14Robert Evans?

  It is. It is. You can see why it leads to people doing that.

• 13:17Speaker 05

  You know, and I've said this to you before, too. It's like, I think in the past, you know, when I was early in my medical training in my career, I didn't care that much about things like that. I would probably read it and be like, dude, what is he saying? What does he mean? Ah, forget it. And I let it go, not worry about that much. But this is how it starts. This is how it starts. It raises enough doubt. It raises enough, like, it makes it vague enough. It makes it cloudy enough that it's hard for people to know what is real and what isn't real. And this is where medical information, like the roots of it begin. It begins in good places sometimes, like a Harvard doctor.

• 13:53Robert Evans?

  Yeah, it's, it's, it's the same thing where we have this problem in journalism, right? If you, there's a great movie called Shattered Glass, starring Hayden Christensen, about, about a journalist for the New Republic, who was like their star reporter, super young, and it turned out all of his stories, he was just making them up, like, complete bullshit, like, literally just inventing people and, and things in order to write entertaining stories. The New York Times, a little bit later, had another reporter get blown up, a star reporter, for the same thing, just completely lying about shit, tricking fact checkers. And it's one of those things, doesn't have to happen all that often, for people to be like, well, then, then, these outlets are no better than whatever, like, weird fucking conspiracy rag, Infowars, or whatever, that I like. And you know what?

• 14:38Robert Evans?

  That's kind of on the journalists for fucking up in that way, right? That's, that's on the newsroom, that's on the editors, that's on to people wanting these big stories. That are exciting and that get eyeballs on, right? Here, you kind of have the merger of the two, right? The New Yorker wants an article that gets a lot of people to read it because, fuck, this is a miracle medicine that might help me and my loved ones with things that are really like causing us problems. And as the doctor, you want to be the first, you want to be the doctor who kind of establishes himself as like, I'm kind of on the ground floor of this breaking new treatment.

• 15:09Speaker 05

  I'm here for people. I'm here for the treatment of people. And there's going to be people who are going to be upset if Celebrax goes away or if these medications go away because there are people out there who are like, this is the one that works for me.

• 15:19Robert Evans?

  Yeah. It's fucked. So, again, I just made the point that Groupman was not breaking the law. The same cannot be said for the next doctor we're going to discuss, an anesthesiologist named Scott Rubin. Starting in the year 2000, Rubin published what would become 21 papers claiming to show evidence that COX2 inhibitors performed better than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients who'd received orthopedic surgery. Now, the last episode, we mostly focused on Merck, and we will later in this one, as the bulk of the blame lies with them, but our old friends at Pfizer don't have totally clean, clean hands here. Rubin was largely pushing a line that Pfizer's product Celebrax was a game changer and that it was paired, when it was paired with Neurontin and Lyrica, both Pfizer products, together,

• 16:03Robert Evans?

  they safely reduced post-operative pain and could help eliminate the need for dangerous addictive drugs like morphine after surgery. Pfizer funded a great deal of Rubin's research from 2002 to 2007, effectively picking him up after he'd established himself as an expert in the burgeoning field of COX2 inhibitor research. The good news is that in the field Rubin attempted to influence, orthopedic surgery, his work had less of an influence than he'd hoped. Most surgeons hesitated to switch to COX2 inhibitors because some very good animal studies showed they slowed the rate at which bones heal, which is kind of a big deal if you're in the orthopedic surgery business.

• 16:38Speaker 05

  Wow, I'm just impressed that the orthopedic surgeons were reading anything. Heyo! Sorry. Sorry, that's my little dig at the orthopedic surgeons. It's really the orthopedic surgeons. Sorry.

• 16:51Robert Evans?

  Speaking of orthopedic surgeons, they don't listen to podcasts, so fuck them. Here's some ads.

• 17:01Speaker 01

  Games on a break? Don't doom scroll. Try rips on Underdog. Buy a digital pack, rip it open, and reveal a real physical card. Football, basketball, even Pokemon. Packs start at just $5. Ship it straight to your door or sell it back instantly at full market value. Max value up to $125,000. Download Underdog and get in on the chase. Deposit $5, get five free packs. Real rips, real cards, real cash. Only on Underdog. Unleash your dog. 18+, terms apply. Top grails are extremely rare.

• 17:32Robert Evans?

  This ad is brought to you by ViiV Healthcare, the makers of Devoto Dolutegravir Lamivudine. If you're living with HIV, do learn about Devoto. Devoto is a complete HIV treatment by prescription only for some people 12 and older. Your doctor will determine if Devoto is right for you. Most HIV pills contain three or four medicines. Devoto is as effective with just two. No other complete HIV pill contains fewer medicines than Devoto.

• 17:56Speaker 06

  It is unknown if Devoto is safe and effective if you have HIV and hepatitis B. If you have Hep B, don't stop Devoto without talking to your doctor as it may get worse or harder to treat. Don't take Devoto if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking Dofetilide due to serious or life-threatening side effects. If you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop Devoto and get medical help right away. Other serious or life-threatening side effects include severe liver problems and lactic acid buildup. If you're female or obese, you may be more at risk. Tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or planned pregnancy.

• 18:31Robert Evans?

  Do ask your doctor about fewer medicines. Visit devoto.com or call 1-877-844-8872.

• 18:38Speaker 03

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of 5-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 19:11Robert Evans?

  And we're back. If you were an orthopedic surgeon, hit me up. I got too many bones. I could use a couple less, probably. So, Rubin's work formed an influential mass of positive seeming scientific PR arguing in favor of drugs like Vioxx and Celabrex as safer super aspirants. An article in Scientific American notes, "A 2007 editorial in Anesthesia and Analgesia stated that Rubin had been at the forefront of redesigning pain management protocols through his carefully planned and meticulously documented studies."

• 19:42Speaker 05

  Did he say that himself? He called his own studies meticulous?

• 19:45Robert Evans?

  No, no, that's what the editorial, how the editors of the paper described him.

• 19:49Speaker 05

  I see.

• 19:50Robert Evans?

  And there's only one problem with these carefully, the 20 or so carefully planned and meticulously documented studies that he had authored over a 12-year period, they were all complete bullshit, fraudulent in every way. Now, we will talk more about Rubin later because a lot of his story occurs after the collapse of Vioxx, but it's important to note that just as Pfizer underwrote Rubin's shoddy research, Merck had deeply questionable science that they funded in an equally dubious way. Back during the FDA approval process, Merck had launched a strategy called ADVANTAGE, in all caps because it was a very tortured acronym, Assessment Differences Between Vioxx and Naproxen to ascertain gastronomical tolerability and effectiveness. An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists describes the goal of ADVANTAGE as using

• 20:31Robert Evans?

  flawed methodologies biased towards predetermined results to exaggerate the drug's positive effects. Quote, "As part of their strategy, scientists manipulated the trial data by comparing the drug to Naproxen, a pain reliever sold under brand names such as a leave rather than a placebo." And yeah, we covered that a little earlier, but what's important is that we now know that Merck had a great deal of evidence when they were pushing this study suggesting that, like, Vioxx massively increased the risk of cardiovascular events, which makes the case that this was not just something where they did a bad study and put this thing next to Naproxen and it looked less risky than it does because it was next to Naproxen. They conducted that study with Naproxen because they had data showing that Vioxx massively

• 21:13Robert Evans?

  increased the risk of heart attacks, and they were deliberately trying to hide that, right? This is all stuff that came out- Later, as a result of the Senate investigation and numerous court cases. So yeah, we know that Merck had a lot of evidence showing this was dangerous and that they deliberately hid it. And we know that this was incredibly profitable for Merck. From 1999 to 2004, Vioxx made them $2.5 billion a year on average. It swiftly became the best selling drug in Merck history and one of the best selling drugs of all time. And just as swiftly, it started to kill people. One of the first to die was Bob Ernst. He was a fit 59 year old triathlete who started taking Vioxx because of recurrent arthritic pain in his hand.

• 21:54Robert Evans?

  His wife Carol had urged him to try Vioxx after seeing an ad and Bob had gone on the medication. On May 6th, 2001, the two had an anniversary date at an Olive Garden in Keene, Texas. Bob passed away in his sleep later that night, dead from heart failure. Now, Bob had been in very good shape, but the death of a 59 year old man from heart failure is simply not the kind of thing that most pathologists are going to consider super suspicious. It was Carol herself who got suspicions and started digging into Bob's one medication. This is the only thing he was prescribed, Vioxx. Even as early as 2001, there were studies showing that Vioxx was bad for heart health. Merck had successfully buried many of them, but there was still stuff that you could find with enough digging online. And that's exactly what his wife did.

• 22:38Robert Evans?

  She found a lawyer, Mark Lanier, who made to take her case. And the book Poison Pills does a wonderful job of chronicling the work that they did. I'm going to have to give you a summary here, which is that in August of 2005, a Texas state jury awarded almost $25 million to Carol Ernst in compensatory damages and more than 200 million in punitive damages. Now, that latter verdict was lowered quite a bit due to a Texas law, but it would be fair to call this a massive victory against Merck. And much of the case against Merck hinged on the fact that in June of 2000, Merck had provided a tranche of early user data to the FDA that revealed Vioxx users had four times as many heart attacks as people on Naproxen. They didn't state this, though. This was in the data, you could find it if you analyze the data,

• 23:21Robert Evans?

  but it was not in any of the conclusions that like Merck sent along to the FDA. And the FDA really just didn't do the work to actually like. Figure this out very quickly. And so it wasn't until 14 months later, in April of 2002, that the FDA actually forced through changes and how Vioxx was labeled to reflect the evidence of risk. Merck took no action on their own to warn users about the fact that they knew that Vioxx was causing heart attacks. Now, in the later trial that would develop from all this, CEO Raymond Gilmarten would claim that Vioxx wanted to add a warning label the instant they were aware of the danger. This was a lie, as Cope and Berry write in their article, "Merck and the Vioxx Debacle." Lanier, that's the lawyer, introduced in the Ernst trial internal Merck documents,

• 24:05Robert Evans?

  which revealed that Merck resisted the FDA's efforts to add warnings to Vioxx's label and eventually complied in ways that the Ernst jury found obscure. "You had to dig three levels to see it," one juror stated. In March 2000, when Merck became aware of the VIGOR study's findings of a significant increase in cardiovascular events for those taking Vioxx over Naproxen, Merck scientists expressed concern. In an email message written in March of 2000, Dr. Edward Skolnik, who was then Merck's head of research, stated the VIGOR clinical trial had shown that Vioxx increased heart risks. "The CV events were clearly there," he wrote. Despite clear warnings, Merck decided against conducting studies on the heart attack risks because marketing executives worried it might hurt Vioxx's sales.

• 24:46Robert Evans?

  Internal Merck analyses in 2001 and 2002 showed that Merck was worried about lost profits if warnings or precautions were put on its label. During that period, Merck was in private negotiations with the FDA over changes to its Vioxx label. David Anstis, who at that time was the president of Merck's Human Health Division, projected that a strict warning would reduce sales by at least 50%. After the VIGOR study findings in March of 2000, a second internal Merck analysis performed in October 2000 showed a significant increase in cardiovascular events for those taking Vioxx. The Merck analysis, plaintiff's attorney Mark Lanier, has argued was never presented to the FDA nor the media, and certainly was not given to the physicians prescribing Vioxx.

• 25:28Robert Evans?

  So this is entirely the marketing team and the CEO coming in and saying like... This will cut profits. So bury it as long as you can. Every additional year we get to sell this stuff without a warning is worth it to us, right? Whatever number of deaths there are, the money this is bringing in is so huge, like it's fine, right? That's literally a decision being made.

• 25:48Speaker 05

  You know, it's like the, it's what's interesting to me is looking at these things is what could the FDA have done better in some of these circumstances? It's hard because some of the information just not being given to them in what seems like a very fraudulent manner. But they, they need to have the power to, to do certain, they need to do certain things. When, when a drug is first approved, there's still a lot of unanswered early safety questions. Because like for most of the studies that, that are getting them approved, there's like maybe two to 4,000 at most patients in a study. Sometimes, oftentimes, that's not enough to see like the, the safety evidence and what risks are associated with it. So the FDA

• 26:32Speaker 05

  has to be there pushing to see more data, making sure that it stays safe. Once those numbers come out, they need to be there to do the post-marketing studies. It's, it's interesting to me to, to see, it's terrifying to me to see going back to what's kind of coming in the future, what's going to happen to our FDA and how deregulated it's going to become and to see what they're going to be able to accomplish. It's, it's going to be, I mean, I just, I mean, I hate to say it, but I think we're going to see more drug-induced injuries than, than ever before, because more medicines are going to be coming out and fewer of them are going to have the, the, the post-marketing studies to, to prove it.

• 27:14Robert Evans?

  And that's, that's what's fucking scary, right? Is that like, we're talking, this is a massive failure by the FDA too, that happened when it was funded, right? Like, you know, we can argue should have been funded more, but like that happened in a period totally different from the one we're entering into now. Like what kind of shit is going to go, come by now that there's, there's no guardrails on any of this stuff, right? Like these fucking MBAs who are managing all of these pharmaceutical companies have absolute, and these marketers Absolutely no restrictions, anything that they can shovel into people's faces to make a profit.

• 27:49Speaker 05

  It's funny, I'm like, you know, I get a lot of shit online for being like a pharma shill. Because like, you know, I promote vaccines, like, because they they work and they're great. And, you know, I I can go into that in in great detail, if you like, but like, the the funny thing is, the people, those people who are so against drug companies, so few of them are against drug companies for the right reason, for reasons like this, you know? When there's a real reason to be mad about pharmaceutical companies, more people are upset about like, the the vaccines that have come out with good data behind them and with good studies in the limited amount of time that they're able to do.

• 28:30Speaker 05

  You know, it it is, it is hard, it's hard for me to to wrap my brain around that, how how I have to be the one defending pharmaceutical companies, and I'm as skeptical of them as anybody.

• 28:42Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 28:42Speaker 05

  Because of shit like this, and then stuff we've seen like this.

• 28:45Robert Evans?

  And it's, yeah, it it's just fucking, I mean, it it what's coming is gonna be sick, folks, in a very literal term. But what happened in the past was pretty sick, too. So it took about four years for the Carol Ernst legal case to wind on against Vioxx, right? From her realizing there was probably something wrong with her husband's medication to actually getting a victory, which is actually pretty quick for one of these lawsuits.

• 29:09Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 29:10Robert Evans?

  The company continued to push the mountain of disinformation during this time about their new star medications dangers. One February 2001 sales memorandum forbade sales reps from discussions on a study that raised heart concerns when they talked to physicians, right? Can't talk about this study about heart attacks from our medication when you sell it to doctors. Salespersons were also ordered to avoid discussing heart health risks and instead hand over a cardiovascular card to physicians, which said, "Vioxx is protecting the heart rather than potentially harming it." That ought to, that ought to take care of all of their questions.

• 29:44Speaker 05

  Oh, good, you gave me a card.

• 29:46Robert Evans?

  Well, you got, you guys got card money, there must be nothing wrong with this stuff. No one shady could afford this kind of embossing. My God, look at that.

• 29:55Speaker 05

  It's okay, guys. They gave me a card. They're good.

• 29:59Robert Evans?

  The Ernst lawsuit was not the first or last against Merck. Most were brought by survivors of heart attacks, or more often, the family members of people who had perished. Merck upped their game, as this passage from Colton Berry's article makes clear. Merck prepared an in-house training game for Vioxx's sales representatives dubbed Dodgeball. Sales trainees could only move on to the next round of the card game if they gave Merck-approved answers to doctors' questions raising Vioxx's safety concerns, or dodged such questions altogether.

• 30:29Speaker 05

  Wow, Dodgeball.

• 30:30Robert Evans?

  They're literally playing Dodgeball with their death medicine?

• 30:35Speaker 05

  You know.

• 30:35Robert Evans?

  With questions about their death medicine.

• 30:37Speaker 05

  It is. Death medicine. It is interesting. Like, they, they, the way they train their reps, like, they train them to deal with different types of doctors. They're very smart. They recognize that there's like, four or five different types of doctors, and they range from like, the, the owl, which is like the name they'd give one when they're training sessions, which is the guy you want to avoid, the, the person you want to avoid, because they're gonna ask the more detailed questions. They're gonna keep drilling to get the, the, the answers. And then, the one they love are the ones they call the peacocks, which you just have to kind of stroke their feathers, tell them they're pretty and smart, and those are the ones that are gonna sell your medication. I mean, they, they know

• 31:18Speaker 05

  the psychology of doctors very well, probably better than doctors do. So, it is, uh, I, I, there's, the farm reps, um, it's changed maybe a little bit, but this was, this was like, the most evil time of the farm reps.

• 31:33Robert Evans?

  Oh, yeah.

• 31:34Speaker 05

  Where they had the most power, and doctors were the least prepared to deal with it.

• 31:37Robert Evans?

  Right, right. It's also this kind of like, there's less of a, of an inbuilt, like, immunity within the medical community, because you guys weren't used to being sold to this way. Yeah, it's like when they first started getting Americans hooked on cigarettes, and like, people had never seen an advertisement before, and they're like, "A cowboy? Well, I'm buying a cigarette now!"

• 31:58Robert Evans?

  So, a later congressional inquiry. Found that Merck leadership divided the studies on Vioxx into approved and background studies and any study that showed a danger to heart health was considered a background study. And so their salespeople were forbidden to discuss them with doctors. This was a violation of company policy. Now, all through 2001 and 2002, the FDA sent letters to Merck poking at it for failing to properly disclose the dangers of Vioxx, but it still took again 14 months for any sort of labeling change to be mandated. Part of why is that officials within the FDA were in the tank for Merck, not all of them, but enough. At later Senate committee investigations, an FDA scientist testified that he had brought forward concerns about Vioxx to his superiors and been pressured to shut up.

• 32:43Robert Evans?

  Another researcher who had gone to the FDA with complaints was Gurkan Paul Singh, a Stanford professor, who claimed that a Merck senior executive complained to his superiors at the university when he reported Vioxx to the FDA. Singh claimed, "I was warned that if I persisted in this fashion, there would be serious consequences for me." Because of course, Merck has the ability to donate a lot of money to a university like Stanford. Now, still, some brave academics continued to blow the whistle as this paragraph from a New York Times article by Alex Berensen, Gardner Harris, and Barry Meyer summarizes. "In 2001, the first major study critical of the drugs appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The report, written by Eric J. Topol and cardiologists at the Cleveland Clinic, reanalyzed

• 33:27Robert Evans?

  data from several clinical trials of Vioxx and Celebrex. It reported that both drugs appeared to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, but that the danger from Vioxx appeared higher. Dr. Topol, the chairman of the clinic's Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, immediately called for trials to determine whether or not the drugs increased cardiovascular risk. Merck and Pfizer both rebuffed that request and said that the Cleveland Clinic report was flawed because it failed to do, among other things, to include data from other studies. Dr. Topol became a harsh critic of both drugs, but his ire focused on Vioxx and Merck. Even before his 2001 report appeared, he said in a recent interview that company scientists came to Cleveland to try to convince him not to publish it. Merck officials denied doing so.

• 34:11Robert Evans?

  A year later, a study by Dr. Wayne Ray, an epidemiologist at Vanderbilt University, found that Medicaid patients in Tennessee who were taking a high doses of Vioxx, greater than the recommended long-term dosage of 25mg daily, had significantly more heart attacks and strokes than similar patients who were not taking high doses." So.

• 34:30Speaker 05

  Back when Alex Berenson used to write useful things.

• 34:33Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 34:36Robert Evans?

  It's okay. His career's moved forward now. He doesn't have to do that anymore. I don't know. It's, uh, it's, it's, it's all pretty bad, right? Like, that's, I mean, terrible. There's a degree to which like, at least you can see these, these heroes who tried to do something, even though, you know, your university is telling you stop. Merck is sending scary guys to your door to be like, are you sure you want to publish that study? You know?

• 34:59Speaker 05

  Yeah. Yeah. It is, it is funny. Like, I didn't realize until this, how slow moving a car wreck this was.

• 35:08Robert Evans?

  Yes.

• 35:08Speaker 05

  Like, this has been, it's a whole thing. It's been happening for a while. It's, I didn't realize that. It is somewhat, it's more nefarious than I expected.

• 35:16Robert Evans?

  Yeah. Well, because Merck, it, like, there's no argument. They don't know exactly what they're doing. They are trading lives for dollars. The longer, they know eventually we'll have to stop selling this stuff because we know how dangerous it is. But every day we get to keep selling it. We, we're recouping that investment. We're making a profit and whatever we have to pay out in the end is going to be less than what we're making.

• 35:40Speaker 05

  I wonder how they justified it to themselves if they did.

• 35:43Robert Evans?

  Money, money, money!

• 35:45Speaker 05

  I, I know, I know. And your listeners are like, what the fuck is wrong with this guy? What kind of, does he not listen to the show? Does he not understand? But I mean, like, I feel like everybody thinks-

• 35:53Robert Evans?

  Box sheesh, baby.

• 35:55Speaker 05

  But like, these farm, like the people, the head of this farm company, they're doing this now. How, like, is, are they lying to themselves in some way? And what lie is that, that they're telling themselves? That's the part I don't understand.

• 36:09Robert Evans?

  They know who to lie to and not. They're lying, I think, to a lot of the doctors and to some of the salespeople. You know, salespeople don't maybe know how to like, analyze whether or not this is a, a good, uh, study or whatever. So they're just like, oh, those other studies that showed a danger, they're not good for this reason or that reason. And like, you're just some fucking sales rep that got hired out of college. Maybe you don't really give that much of a shit. But there are people, plenty of people who know exactly what they're doing, right? And like, those people who know exactly what they're doing, just don't care. They don't feel bad about the fact that they're getting people killed, right?

• 36:45Speaker 05

  There's just, like, in every episode I do, there's like this one moment where I turn to you and I'm just like, Robert, why do bad people do bad things? I just don't understand it. I'm so dumb in that way.

• 36:59Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 36:59Speaker 05

  My brain doesn't.

• 37:01Robert Evans?

  Yeah, I mean, it's not dumb. You just aren't. You just have a soul.

• 37:06Speaker 05

  And I'm working to get rid of it.

• 37:07Robert Evans?

  Yeah, well, that's, that's the only thing that's gonna let us win. We all have to get rid of our souls today. Which, by the way, I've got a great new medication for getting rid of your souls. First step, you're gonna go to your local, not a local gas station, actually. You wanna go to a truck stop about thirty or forty minutes outside of town. Right? If you can actually like, see, uh, like people, like, like, like, there's more than a half dozen rigs parked outside. That's probably a good truck stop. And you're gonna go in there and behind the counter, there should be a wall of pills. And you're just gonna ask for all of them. And you pour that into a cup, and this is critical. You mix it in with Mountain Dew Code Red, not Baja Blast. That'll fuck it up. Do not mix Baja Blast in.

• 37:51Robert Evans?

  Mountain Dew Code Red, and then shoot that shit as fast as possible. And that's gonna get rid of your soul. And then you're ready to join us on the front lines fighting the demons.

• 38:01Speaker 05

  Don't, don't do that, people.

• 38:02Robert Evans?

  You'll also be able to see demons. Um, that's, that's a promise.

• 38:07Speaker 05

  Yeah, you're gonna see some shit.

• 38:08Robert Evans?

  You're gonna see some demons. Yeah, all of that fucking ibogaine or whatever the fuck they put this in, in those pills. It was a random trucker pills, uh, that they just, they all, they almost call them Adderall, but not quite.

• 38:25Speaker 05

  I wanna go check it out now. I mean, I live in San Francisco, so we don't have like, you know, forty minutes outside of town is like another town. So I gotta like, go pretty far.

• 38:33Robert Evans?

  You gotta go down the five to that place that sells split pea soup. Uh, and then, yeah, yeah, yeah, you can find some trucker pills there. Yeah.

• 38:41Speaker 05

  All right, I'm gonna do it, actually. I think this is a good day trip.

• 38:43Robert Evans?

  Yeah, this'll be good. Let's, let's, let's go do it together. We'll buy all the trucker pills and we'll see how they work.

• 38:48Speaker 05

  Can we livestream that?

• 38:49Robert Evans?

  Absolutely. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah.

• 38:53Robert Evans?

  So in late September 2004, as the death toll mounted and Merck's legal team was buried in cases, they made the decision to pull Vioxx off the market altogether. This is right after the case has been decided against them. There is no longer keeping this cat in the bag, and now it's about damage control. Their official justification was that they just had a long-term clinical trial, which showed that some patients developed cardiovascular problems after taking the drug for 18 months. The data showed 15 heart attacks, strokes, or blood clots per 1,000 people over three years compared with seven and a half cardiac events in the general population. And even if you believe this Merck study, which I think is kind of trying to pad how bad it is, that's still much worse. That's still a real problem.

• 39:38Robert Evans?

  The stock market reacted first, costing Merck somewhere in the neighborhood of $26 billion in a day, but that's not real money. They get it back. You know how the stock market works. The next reaction came from the families of people who died due to Vioxx, leading to a rush of new lawsuits. But the initial public reaction was beyond muted. It was, in fact, downright hostile to the victims. And this likely has something to do with a particularly toxic aspect of US culture I call scalding McDonald's coffee syndrome. Now, you've probably heard the story about the woman who had a hot coffee spill in her lap at a McDonald's drive-thru, and she sued them and got a bunch of money. This is a thing that especially when I was younger, I think more people know the real story now, but you would see viral memes all the time. You'd see it in newspapers.

• 40:21Robert Evans?

  It was really a thing like my parents' generation loved to hate on. It was particularly a big thing for conservatives who were angry at how mean all these frivolous lawsuits hurting innocent corporations. Like, this woman spills coffee in her own lap. And the reality was McDonald's had the coffee way higher than they were legally allowed to have it. They should not have been selling or handing people coffee that hot. And it gave her third-degree burns to her entire genital area. It was a hideous, hideous, life-altering injury that she suffered because they were not doing what they legally should have been doing. Anyway, we don't need to rant on this, but at the time this happens... A lot less people realize the true story there. And so there is this big backlash against frivolous lawsuits against companies.

• 41:05Robert Evans?

  And what the Merck-Viials lawsuits initially get lost in that, right? When Carol von Ernst won her case against Merck, a lot of pundits of the day kind of looped this in with the McDonald's coffee case as another example of our sue happy culture run amok. From the book Poison Pills, Carol Ernst's lawyer, Mark Lanier, was blasted by everyone from physicians to newspaper columnists for winning the trial by twisting the facts and relying on nothing but an ignorant jury of hicks, despite the fact that his witnesses included some of the best-known physicians and scientists in the world. Even as the Texas jury was deliberating, Merck's lead attorney, Jerry Lowry, said, "If he, Lanier, had any evidence Viials causes arrhythmia, this case would have been over three weeks ago." A few months after the trial verdict, CNBC broadcasted debate between Lanier and Richard

• 41:51Robert Evans?

  Epstein, the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute. The professor had written an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal and said that physicians lamented the fact that they could no longer use the drug. Many leading newspapers, including the Washington Post, also mocked the Ernst trial. In an editorial entitled "The Viials Hex," the Post wrote that "The Texas jury in that case awarded $253.4 million to the widow of a man who died of a heart attack triggered by arrhythmia, which is not a condition Viials has been proven to cause." The Post said the jury was confused about the medical evidence. And this is, number one, that fucking dude debating Lanier on stage as a Hoover Institute guy, it's right-wing think-tape. But number two, you've got all these like big publications going like, "Oh, it's a Texas jury, so clearly they're hicks.

• 42:36Robert Evans?

  They don't understand our big-city science. They just got bamboozled by this smooth-talking lawyer who just hated Merck." It's so fucked up.

• 42:47Speaker 05

  You're totally right. It was like this era where it was like, people like, "There has to be personal accountability for this." They should have known that there was a small risk with medications and they, I mean, they're missing the point, which was that the risk... Was obfuscated in the beginning. I think, I mean, it sounds like, to be honest with you, it, it, it's still, at some point, they look back at these medications and they said, you know what? There might be a role for them. And they're actually, you know, very well could be a good use for some of these.

• 43:19Robert Evans?

  Celabrec still has some uses and stuff, right?

• 43:22Speaker 05

  Yeah, I mean, even, even Vioxx could have had specific uses for very well chosen patients.

• 43:28Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 43:28Speaker 05

  And they'll never get to that. Those patients will never get to that. They'll never get to have that benefit of a medicine that could actually work. Because, again, instead of all the money going into research, development, figuring out exactly who benefits and who gets harmed from it and who should have it and who shouldn't, they spent all their money and energy in finding ways to sell it and for as long as possible. And they painted themselves into a corner at the end and they couldn't, at that point, then say, okay, well, actually, only these small set of people should use the medication. Because the risk is then worth it in these, the small subset. But they couldn't do that. They had to withdraw completely. So it's just so stupid on so many levels. It's so, and it's such a waste.

• 44:13Speaker 05

  And it's a waste of all the time and effort that went into making the medication again, too. Because again, the concept behind the medication, looking at COX2 inhibitors, looking at ways to selectively attack those pain, the pain pathways, shut down the pain pathways before they cascade into inflammation and pain. It's all smart. It's good. And now, now it's my knowledge, I don't know if people are even thinking about this anymore. And like, we still have problems with NSAIDs. NSAIDs still cause problems. Lots of health problems still come from them. Advil, Leibin, Profin, they still cause me headaches because I have to go and take care of people bleeding because of them. They cause heart issues, kidney problems, liver problems. But people should be, we should be researching new pain medications

• 44:55Speaker 05

  and worrying about how to do that right as opposed to how to make as much money off of it as possible. But that's, it's not where we are. It's not who we are. So I, I don't know why I'm saying this. I'm just.

• 45:05Robert Evans?

  No, I mean, it's, it's, it's all very frustrating, right? Like, the way that this worked is just comprehen- Bad for everybody but a handful of people at the top of Merck. It's bad for the research scientists at Merck who were not shady motherfuckers, who will always exist under a cloud of suspicion because they worked during the viox era. It's bad for the people who might have benefited from a viox that was rolled out in a more reasonable way to a smaller subset of people. It's bad for all of the tens of thousands of people who lost loved ones and the people who had life altering injuries as a result of it. It's just terrible for everybody. But you know, Dr. Hoda, what's not terrible for anybody?

• 45:45Speaker 05

  What's that?

• 45:46Robert Evans?

  Products and services that support this podcast, all of which have been FDA approved. And if we've learned anything this episode, that always means good.

• 45:54Speaker 05

  Good.

• 45:57Speaker 01

  Underdog already has team picks, player props, money lines, spreads, you name it, they got it. But apparently somebody over there said, you know what's missing? Screaming like a maniac about a rookie card on your couch. And we love them for that because Underdog now has rips. You get a digital pack starting at just five bucks. You check the live odds, see which grails you could pull, then rip it open to reveal a real physical card. And the grails are no joke. They have cards up to $125,000 in value and plenty to pull. From football and basketball to Pokemon with new limited edition packs dropping regularly. Even cooler, you can decide to keep the card and Underdog will ship it straight to your home or sell it back instantly at 100% of its fair market value.

• 46:41Speaker 01

  And the cash goes right in your account. No listing it online, no stranger low balling you in the messages. Just rip, reveal and cash out instantly or make some room on your shelf. Download Underdog and get in on the chase. Get five free rips packs when you deposit $5. Real rips, real cards, real cash only on Underdog. Unleash your dog. 18 plus terms apply. Top grails are extremely rare.

• 47:05Robert Evans?

  This ad is brought to you by ViiV Healthcare, the makers of Dovato, Dolutegravir, Lamivudine. If you're living with HIV, do learn about Dovato. Dovato is a complete HIV treatment by prescription only for some people 12 and older. Your doctor will determine if Dovato is right for you. Most HIV pills contain three or four medicines. Dovato is as effective with just two. No other complete HIV pill contains fewer medicines than Dovato.

• 47:29Speaker 06

  It is unknown if Dovato is safe and effective if you have HIV and hepatitis B. If you have Hep B, don't stop Dovato without talking to your doctor as it may get worse or harder to treat. Don't take Dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking Dofetolide due to serious or life-threatening side effects. If you have a rash or allergic reaction symptoms, stop Dovato and get medical help right away. Other serious or life-threatening side effects include severe liver problems and lactic acid buildup. If you're female or obese, you may be more at risk. Tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or planned pregnancy.

• 48:05Robert Evans?

  Do ask your doctor about fewer medicines. Visit dovato.com or call 1-877-844-8872.

• 48:12Speaker 07

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 48:42Robert Evans?

  And we're back. So we're drawing to a close in this episode.

• 48:48Speaker 05

  I have a question. Did they actually lose money overall from this? How much?

• 48:54Robert Evans?

  No, no, no, no, no. They pay in total a little less than $1 billion in penalties and additional civil settlements for their victim. They are making $2.5 billion a year during the period of time where they're selling this.

• 49:06Speaker 05

  And it's out for five years?

• 49:08Robert Evans?

  Something like five years, yeah.

• 49:09Speaker 05

  Yeah, okay.

• 49:11Robert Evans?

  Yeah. Um, so that's cool. Now, one of my favorite side parts in this story is that the Washington Post takes like a huge, strong stance to defend an unethical mega corporation and got something wrong, which is not a thing that ever happens again. Um, anyway, uh, about a year after the Post's article talking about how unfair it is to sue Merck, Harvard School of Public Health issues a public health bulletin warning that Vioxx use was associated with severe heart rhythm disorders and an increased risk of kidney failure. More research comes out in the following years that further vindicates everyone who tried to warn Merck and the world about Vioxx, the medication that had been prescribed to some 20 million people in 80 countries by the time it was polled. We will never have a comprehensive

• 49:56Robert Evans?

  list of the number of people killed and injured as a result of Vioxx, but what we do know is harrowing. Dr. David Graham, the Associate Director for Science and Medicine in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that Vioxx had been associated with at least 100,000 heart attacks and more than 55,000 premature deaths. That is, in the United States. He compared the cost to two to four jumbo jetliners crashing every week for five years.

• 50:23Speaker 05

  Holy shit.

• 50:24Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 50:27Speaker 05

  It's a striking imagery.

• 50:28Robert Evans?

  Yes, that's, that's a lot of dead people.

• 50:31Speaker 05

  God.

• 50:32Robert Evans?

  Mm-hmm. Now, the lawsuits that resulted from this are far too numerous. The Chronicle saved to note that Merck initially promised to fight each of the 30,000 lawsuits against them independently.

• 50:42Speaker 05

  We'll fight everyone.

• 50:44Robert Evans?

  Yes, yes.

• 50:45Speaker 05

  To the last man.

• 50:45Robert Evans?

  Uh, then they agreed in 2008 to provide what could have been almost $5 billion as part of the settlement, uh, but I don't know how much of that they actually paid out. And then they pled guilty to a misdemeanor for illegal promotional activity. That was about another 950 million in penalties and civil payments. So, you know, they wound up paying a good amount of money. That's like, they lost a good like two years or so of the profits that they made.

• 51:12Speaker 05

  Did Dorothy Hamill do any time?

• 51:14Robert Evans?

  No, no, Dorothy Hamill does not go to prison for her many crimes.

• 51:18Speaker 05

  Skating for you.

• 51:18Robert Evans?

  For her many crimes. They do plead guilty to a misdemeanor for introducing a misbranded drug to interstate commerce. So that's nice. But no one at Merck is locked up for what they did, nor do any of the scientists who agree to help cover up studies or push disinfo suffer lasting career harms, with the notable exception of our friend Scott Rubin. Paul White, the editor at the Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia, claims that Rubin's studies showing the benefits of COX2 inhibitors helped sell billions of dollars worth of both Celebrex and Vioxx. In 2009, he was revealed to have completely falsified at least 21 of his published papers, all of which claimed to show how well super aspirins could benefit post-operative healing. Pfizer had funded Rubin's work from 2002 to 2007, the years when they were also

• 52:01Robert Evans?

  making bank on a little medication called Celebrex. His employer, Bay State Medical Center, claimed to Scientific American that Rubin had been paid directly by Pfizer for his work, and that he had been decided how much of that money would fund research and how much would go into his pocket, which sounds fine. That's not sketchy. There's nothing, how could that lead to anything bad?

• 52:24Speaker 05

  Man, you know, it's giving anesthesiologists a bad name.

• 52:28Robert Evans?

  It is, it is.

• 52:29Speaker 05

  And these are guys who deal with a lot of fentanyl. So that is wild. That is, well, I am actually, I would love to read his articles that are totally fabricated.

• 52:42Robert Evans?

  Oh, yeah, there's some good breakdowns on them from, from scientists who are more qualified than me to talk about it. I do recommend it's a fascinating story. One of my favorite quotes from this is that his employer, Bay State, like, when people would note that, like, well, that's not how pharmaceutical, you're not just supposed to give a single guy cash. That's not how pharmaceutical research is supposed to be done. A spokesman for Bay State Medical Center told Scientific American, "I don't know how many dollars went to Rubin or his group."

• 53:12Speaker 05

  Wow.

• 53:13Robert Evans?

  No idea.

• 53:15Speaker 05

  Holy hell.

• 53:16Robert Evans?

  A Pfizer spokesperson insisted the grants were properly dispersed to Bay State in accordance with Pfizer policy, but that they weren't familiar with the records retention policies of Bay State. So, you know, who knows? Who knows how much money? Between $10,000 and $100,000 at least. But he was actually asked to pay $360,000 in restitution when he got sentenced in 2010 after pleading guilty of massive fraud. Prosecutors argued that he'd been paid huge money in grants and never performed the studies he'd been paid to conduct. He just pocketed the cash and published lies about Celebrex. Thankfully, justice was done.

• 53:56Robert Evans?

  He was given six months in prison and asked to pay $360,000 in restitution to the pharmaceutical companies who'd sponsored his work, the real victims in all this.

• 54:06Speaker 05

  Holy shit.

• 54:06Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 54:07Speaker 05

  Actually, I mean, he did some time. That's something. I mean, I do know doctors that have gone to actual prison for like Medicare fraud and that sort of thing, like done actual time. It's not common, but you know, it can certainly happen. I mean, the things I'm seeing are there. It's always fraud related, you know?

• 54:26Robert Evans?

  Yeah.

• 54:27Speaker 05

  And actually, six months isn't as long as I've seen other people go for what I kind of consider to be lesser crimes, but they weren't crimes committed directly against the American government in Medicare fraud. So that's probably why he only got six months.

• 54:41Robert Evans?

  Yep. Yeah. And that's the story of Iox. Dr. Hoda, how you feeling? How you good?

• 54:49Speaker 05

  I mean, you know, I, again, it comes down to like, I'm always a little torn when I do episodes or talk about how terrible pharmaceutical companies are because they are terrible and I have so many problems with them. But there's always a part of me that's like, They are super important at the same time and we do need them more than ever to be really focused on important world health issues and infectious diseases. And the problem is the things I really care about, the things I think are really important are not necessarily things that they are going to make money off of and they just don't really care. So I'm very torn. I've, I have a lot of mixed emotions about pharmaceutical companies in general and it

• 55:34Speaker 05

  bothers me when people assume that I am like pro pharmaceutical company because I hate them more than anybody, really. I mean, I really do, but at the same time, we do need their help unless we get more scientists like Dr. Peter Hotez, who's, you know, a friend of the show has come on, who has made his own pharmacy, like vaccines at cost, these great like vaccines and people still accuse him of being a pharmaceutical, even though he works completely outside of the pharma world. So I, I'm very torn about pharmaceutical companies in general and I think it is very,

• 56:15Speaker 05

  very, very important that we continue to like pick at them, analyze them, be super critical of them, but also be fair about what they can do, what, what they should do and what we should expect from them. I, I think we have to be able to look at them critically and look at them in a sort of, in it, we have to look at them critically, but we also have to be able to be fair and reasonable about what we expect from a massive corporation. These are examples like this, this case here of things that should never have been allowed to have happened and are going to continue to happen because we aren't going to have the oversight of these companies and it's going to become easier and easier for things

• 56:58Speaker 05

  like this to happen, which is my fear, unless doctors and scientists around the world have the time and energy to really pick apart at every detail and every study that comes from them. But I think even academic medicine is going to be under the gun in the coming years too. I, I don't feel great for my friends who have like.

• 57:22Speaker 05

  Who have academic jobs in medicine, I think they're all going to be at risk. Who's going to get paid? Who's going to be able to get to stay? Who's going to be able to get their research done? It's all going to be at the whim of people who know very little about science and care very little about science. So I'm very depressed is the answer to your question.

• 57:40Robert Evans?

  Yeah, I mean, that's, yeah, there's not much more to say on the matter than that, right? Like this is, I guess part of what's so frustrating to me is that the sweep of like the anti-intellectual crusade that is, is going to cost so many people their lives is of such catastrophic danger to every positive gain that we've, we have made as a society in the last 150 years is fueled in part by the irresponsibility, greed and wastefulness of people who knew better, who are not ideologues, who are not misinformed, who are just willing to, well, the system can handle, you know, me fucking around in this way or like, why shouldn't I get paid?

• 58:23Robert Evans?

  Right? Like someone will catch it and won't be that bad. Like, and those little acts of malfeasance provide a lot of the fuel, like the distrust, the hatred for elites and whatnot. You know, when I say elites, I mean, like in, you know, the medical sense, right? You've got doctors and people at the FDA who are like in the tank for these sketchy drugs that get people killed. And that means that when we have a fucking pandemic, less people trust them, right? Like Vioxx is not 0% of why so many people were hesitant to, to trust medical science during COVID. Right? And neither is the opiate epidemic, right? And that, that doesn't mean that the people that RFK has a point.

• 59:03Robert Evans?

  It means that like, if you let people get away with shit like this, and we always do, it'll just keep getting worse. Somebody who is, who is absolutely has no limits whatsoever will start taking advantage of the situation.

• 59:18Speaker 05

  Yeah, that's exactly right. That's exactly right. So yeah, it's gonna be a wild four years. There's gonna be so much diarrhea.

• 59:27Robert Evans?

  Yeah, there's gonna be a lot of diarrhea. Look, folks, every year I go to Vegas, I find whichever buffet has the rancidest mussels and I eat 14 to 15 plates. And that provides me with the internal strength and resilience I need to handle any kind of change to our health and safety food standards. I'm gonna be fine in this, this sick new world, Kava. I'm gonna be eating rancid mussels like a king.

• 59:53Speaker 05

  So many, so many foodborne illnesses. So much diarrhea. It's gonna be the golden age of diarrhea.

• 1:00:00Robert Evans?

  It's gonna be the golden age of diarrhea, the brown age, really. Yeah, that's, that's what we're gonna call this. The, the Gildan age and the, uh,

• 1:00:08Speaker 05

  Brown age.

• 1:00:09Robert Evans?

  Well, actually, we could call it the Gilton age, which is an old timey term for like shit encrusted on your, your ass.

• 1:00:16Speaker 05

  Perfect. We'll have to explain it, but it works.

• 1:00:18Robert Evans?

  Yeah, you have to explain it. You have to explain it, but you know, why does that make it bad? Anyway.

• 1:00:23Speaker 05

  No. Yeah.

• 1:00:24Robert Evans?

  All right.

• 1:00:25Speaker 05

  Thanks for having me. It was a blast. Yeah. It's always good. Uh, it's nice seeing you. Nice seeing your face. Um, for your listeners who may have an interest in learning more about medical topics, you can listen to my podcast, The House of Pod, anywhere you get your podcasts and, uh, follow me at Blue Sky at KavMD. And, uh, uh, thank you.

• 1:00:47Robert Evans?

  Yeah. Thanks for coming on the show.

• 1:00:55Speaker 04

  Behind the Bastards is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzonemedia.com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Behind the Bastards is now available on YouTube. New episodes every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe to our channel, youtube.com slash at Behind the Bastards.

• 1:01:19Speaker 01

  Underdog already has team picks, player props, money lines, spreads. You name it, they got it. But apparently, somebody over there said, "You know what's missing? Screaming like a maniac about a rookie card on your couch." And we love them for that. Because Underdog now has rips. You get a digital pack, starting at just five bucks. You check the live odds, see which grails you could pull, then rip it open to reveal a real, physical card. And the grails are no joke. They have cards up to $125,000 in value, and plenty to pull. From football and basketball to Pokémon, with new, limited edition packs dropping regularly. Even cooler, you can decide to keep the card, and Underdog will ship it straight to your home. Or sell it back instantly at 100% of its fair market value.

• 1:02:03Speaker 01

  And the cash goes right in your account. No listing it online, no stranger lowballing you in the messages. Just rip, reveal, and cash out instantly. Or make some room on your shelf. Download Underdog and get in on the chase. Get five free rips packs when you deposit $5. Real rips, real cards, real cash. Only on Underdog. Unleash your dog. 18+, terms apply. Top grails are extremely rare.

• 1:02:28Speaker 03

  Cash flow crunch? OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000, right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today at ondeck.com. Funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 1:02:58Speaker 00

  This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.