Originally published November 24 2004
Merck rolls out spin machine to defend itself in Vioxx scandal
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Following the recall of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, Merck & Co. is trying to defend itself. It has made television appearances and placed ads in seven newspapers, stating that it withdrew the drug immediately after learning about the link between it and the risk of heart attacks and strokes. They claimed they put the interests of patients first. The risk of heart attacks and strokes for people taking Vioxx was double that of those taking the placebo. Howard Rubinstein, President of Rubinstein Associates, a New York public relations firm, stated that it will not be easy for Merck to salvage its reputation.
-
Merck & Co.'s campaign to defend itself in the wake of the recall of the pain reliever Vioxx intensified as it placed a package of three full-page ads in seven prominent newspapers beginning last Friday.
- That follows several television appearances as well as testimony before Congress by the company's chief executive.
- But public relations experts are calling the campaign predictable and said it lacks a crucial element necessary to bolster Merck's claims that it acted responsibly and timely in removing Vioxx from the market: Parties with no self interest or financial ties to the company coming to its defense.
- "When people read ads, they discount them because they know the company paid for them," said Howard Rubenstein, president of Rubenstein Associates, a New York-based public relations firm whose crisis-management clients have included Christie's International PLC and Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. "What they did was appropriate, sure.
- Rubenstein added that Merck's strategy of asserting it withdrew Vioxx immediately upon learning there was a link between the drug and a higher risk of heart attack and strokes could backfire if plaintiffs' lawyers prove the company understood the side effects much earlier and stifled the news.
- That's because if lawyers prove Merck muzzled Vioxx's risks, the company may be forced to pay punitive as well as compensatory damages.
- Estimates of Vioxx's legal costs have varied widely, reaching from $4 billion to $18 billion.
- But Rubenstein said even if Merck can survive financially, any proof that it put profits in front of patients would devastate its already tarnished reputation.
- "This is a public relations nightmare," said Rubenstein, who added that Merck's reputation has fallen among numerous groups, including doctors, patients, scientists and investors.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml