Children, soft money and McProzac [1997]

[Guest guest]

> SSRI-Research

> Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:57:59 -0400

> [sSRI-Research] Children, soft money and

> McProzac [1997]

>

> Children, soft money and McProzac

>

>

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=570

>

> August 18, 1997

>

>

> President Clinton's proposal last week that

> pharmaceutical companies test all drugs likely to be

> prescribed for children brought to the forefront

> once again the unsettling issue of children and

> antidepressants.

>

> What is particularly chilling is the masterly way

> Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Prozac, is continuing

> to present itself as an innocent bystander in the

> process to gain Food and Drug Administration

> approval for pediatric antidepressants. I was

> recently on a radio show with Lilly representative

> Dr. Gary Tollefson, who talked in measured tones

> about Lilly's " partnership with the academic

> community, " " peer review medical journals " and the

> need to establish " whether the benefits outweigh the

> risks. " This, at the very moment when Lilly has

> signed up Leo Burnett of Chicago, the ad agency

> handling Reebok and McDonald's, to target consumers

> directly.

>

> Lilly's public stance is of a civic-minded company

> whose sole concern is the well-being of children --

> especially the millions of children whose quiet

> suffering could come to an end by imbibing

> peppermint-flavored Prozac.

>

> Meanwhile, through its extremely active political

> action committee, Lilly makes sure that elected

> officials in Washington will not be asking too many

> questions about Prozac and children. In the last 10

> years, the PAC has made several hundred

> contributions to federal campaigns -- among them

> those of Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay, Trent

> Lott, Chris Dodd and members of the House Commerce

> subcommittee on health.

>

> Lilly has also become expert at the soft-money game.

> The company went from zero soft-money contributions

> in the 1992 election cycle to $746,675 in 1996. When

> asked to explain this burst of generosity, Lilly

> spokesman Jeff Newton replied: " We do it because we

> think we have to participate in the political

> process. ... We give to both parties. They are

> important institutions, basically, and that's why we

> do it. "

>

> Lilly's money is not wasted. Seeking to clarify the

> company's role in the pediatric drug approval

> process, I called members of Congress supposed to be

> keeping the FDA and pharmaceutical giants on the

> straight and narrow. A staff member of one

> congressman admitted bluntly, off the record, that

> his boss would not contact the FDA to ask questions

> about Lilly because he had received campaign

> contributions from the firm.

>

> Fortunately, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a member of the

> Government Reform and Oversight Committee, does not

> receive Lilly money. When Kucinich asked the FDA for

> information, the agency responded by citing F-D-C

> Reports, which covers the drug industry: " Prozac is

> being studied by Eli Lilly and Co. (the sponsor) as

> an antidepressant for use in patients under 18 years

> of age and ... a pre-N.D.A. (New Drug Application)

> filing' was made. "

>

> That directly contradicts the passive stance that

> Lilly has been assuming for public consumption --

> including in a letter sent to me and every newspaper

> that published my column critical of pushing Prozac

> on kids.

>

> This letter is part of a well-orchestrated,

> cold-blooded attempt summed up by Lilly executive

> Christina Hendricks: " We go after those people, " she

> told a drug industry conference in May, referring to

> anyone who dares be disrespectful of Prozac, even in

> greeting cards, " with a very serious intent to get

> them to cease and desist from their activities. " Any

> attack on Prozac is being countered as " belittling

> those suffering from depression. "

>

> Lilly's damage-control strategies include secret

> settlements with plaintiffs regarding Prozac's

> adverse effects. The latest occurred in Louisville,

> Ky., where Lilly quietly reached agreement with the

> families of the victims of a Prozac user who killed

> eight and wounded 12 in a printing-plant shooting

> spree. Two dozen more lawsuits are pending. Nor is

> that all. Lilly had to plead guilty to criminal

> charges and pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in

> fines after concealing from the FDA the fact that

> patients in Britain had died after taking Oraflex --

> another Lilly drug.

>

> Lilly has also found itself in hot water over the

> accuracy of its clinical trials, when the company

> was discovered using homeless alcoholics shortly

> after drinking binges. And last month, this paragon

> of civic-mindedness had to settle litigation with

> retail pharmacy and supermarket chains.

>

> Now the massive pharmaceutical company, whose 1996

> profits were $1.52 billion, is cynically planning an

> expansion into the children's market while

> pretending it is not and dosing Congress into

> docility with money soft and hard.

>

> " Lilly's proactive approach to media management may

> be smoothing the way for antidepressants in

> children, " F-D-C Reports observed this year. Indeed.

> Dr. Tollefson appeared on National Public Radio in

> May to tell listeners that adult depression " often

> begins in children and adolescents. "

>

> What mom or dad would condemn their young one to a

> life of depression when, with kiddie Prozac, the

> Kodachrome perfection of an American childhood could

> be at hand? Watch out, America. That's how they gild

> the lily at Lilly. They talk obsessively about the

> relatively few children with serious depression,

> while leaving out the millions of kids whose growing

> brains are being meddled with even though there is

> no clear medical knowledge of the long-term effects

> of Prozac.

>

> Next time you hear a Lilly executive talking about

> improving childhood through chemistry, remember that

> he stands to make huge profits by getting kids

> hooked on Lilly drugs. Last year, Lilly CEO Randall

> Tobias took home $6.68 million in compensation, a 75

> percent increase over the previous year. " Executive

> compensation at Lilly is tied closely to company

> performance, " a company spokesman helpfully

> explained.

>

> Oh? And how, precisely, does this incentive plan --

> growing wealthier by expanding the market of

> restless and troubled kids medicating themselves

> against life's emotional roller coaster -- differ

> from that of the Cali cartel?

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]