It is a issue. He ISN’T an MD. He’s holding himself out as one, through his actions. Depending on how it’s done, it’s a violation of New york state law (Section 6530, #12http://www.op.nysed.gov/article131-a.htm)
I’m not saying that he IS violating the law in the commercial, but it is skirting the line. But it IS misleading.
Because I don’t like the way he does things. It’s my opinion. I quite frankly don’t understand why so many people like the guy for basically saying something was successful that never was. And people did die in the process.
Oh, and btw, I’ve done plenty. Including professional liscensure so as to not hold myself out to the public for something I’m not. And an MBA. And by the time I was 30, too.
What’s so bad about Jarvik hawking Liptor? I mean is there something about Lipitor itself that makes it not worth supporting? I know some folks have problems with advertising drugs on TV, but isn’t that somehwat a different issue?
"Statins differ in their potency. However, many patients require LDL reductions of only 30–40%, which is achievable with all statins. Given the pressure to contain costs in all major markets, low-cost, generic versions of simvastatin and pravastatin are now an increasingly attractive treatment option for the majority of patients.
For patients that require a greater reduction in LDL levels, or have other risk factors such as heart disease or diabetes, guidelines suggest that simvastatin or atorvastatin (Lipitor; Pfizer) are used. Last year, sales of Lipitor tipped US$12 billion, but Pfizer is already beginning to feel the squeeze from the generic statins,…"
Basically, by agreeing to appear in the commercial as Dr. Jarvis, the inventor of the artificial heat, he’s essentially recommending Lipitor as a treatment over generic statins that might work equally as well. Now, in some cases, Lipitor or Crestor or other statin drugs that are still on patent are the most appropriate choice for certain patients, especially if they have liver-disease or a super-high level of cholesterol. But, Dr. Jarvik doesn’t know you, and he doesn’t know if any of these conditions apply to you. He’s not even an expert in the management of hypercholesteremia or heart disease, he’s a biomedical engineer. So, he’s chosen to whore out his Q-factor for inventing the artificial heart into another region of medicine: statin drugs, and frankly helping to undermine the scientific decision making of most family practice physicians for the sake of a buck.
Imagine if Stephen Hawking started selling Buicks. Sure, he’s a very bright guy that knows tons about the science that underlies the technology of a Buick automobile, but he isn’t a particular expert in which cars are actually the best for any given person. Perhaps a a lot of people recognize this, but a large number of people will still show up at a dealership demanding a Buick because that’s what Stephen Hawking told them to buy. Similarly, when a 60 year old man presents to his family doctor and starts discussing his cholesterol, Pfizer is hoping that Dr. Jarvik’s reputation will get patients or even doctors to choose Lipitor over a cheaper alternative. I think it’s kind of shitty because lay-people depend upon health-care professionals to help make sense of the decision to go with any one drug and Dr. Jarvik is interfering in that process for money rather than any interest in improving a patients decision making process. It’s not the worst thing in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s tacky.
OK, but unlike a Buick, you can’t just go out and buy Lipitor, right? Doesn’t he say, “ask if Lipitor is right for you.” I could see the outrage if his name recognition was adding credibility to something that didn’t really deserve it, but I can’t get to riled up about Lipitor, which actually works and is recommended under the right ciircumstances after consultation with your doctor.
Jarvik received his MD from the U. of Utah in 1976. He is a physician, and thus due all the rights and privileges associated with holding such a degree, including the privilege of being called a doctor, or a physician.
Licensure is immaterial to the title. Licensure permits the practice of medicine and surgery, but someone holding a medical degree from an accredited university is still a doctor of medicine, whether or not they’ve had their license revoked, or never had one in the first place.
One of my professors was Dr. Richard Johns of Johns Hopkins Biomechanical Engineering fame, particularly for his cardiac work. I remember him speaking favorably about Dr. Jarvik and his work back in the 80’s.
I don’t know if Dr. Jarvik holds a valid license or not. But frankly, at Hopkins there were a lot of hard-core research physicians who contributed mightily to the advancement of health, whose work didn’t require a license.
The man built a machine. The machine is not a perfect nor permanent replacement for the human heart, but it does serve a purpose. That purpose is keeping the patient alive until said patient can get a replacement heart. To complain about that is to complain about dialysis machines not being perfect replacements for kidneys.
One need not be a medical doctor to design a machine that serves the purpose specified by a doctor.
So the fact that Hawking is accomplished and respected should preclude him from endorsing a product? Personally, I think that if Hawking understands the science behind the automobile, and he is capable of forming an opinion, it makes him a perfect candidate to be a spokesperson. As long as he actually believes in the product and is not misleading anyone with shaky science, I don’t have any problem with him being a spokesperson.
That’s what we in Marketing would call a successful ad campaing. Though I have to say that I’m quite entertained by the image of a cadre of Stephen Hawking fans descending on a Buick dealership and demanding a Buick simply because Hawking gave it an endorsement.
Huh. When I was looking at colleges, I applied to Stanford, but didn’t get accepted. Guess that means I failed high school. I never realized that a B average was not considered a passing grade.
And they say the US academic standards are slipping!
I don’t really consider Dr. Jarvik as being a sellout, simply put the guy needed money. He’s always been good at self promotion, nothing has really changed. But I must give credit where it’s due, this man can turn on the charm better than anyone I’ve ever met.
For the record I once asked a Symbion insider what the true story was on how Dr. Jarvik became such a phenomenon, I was told he was simply at the right place at the right time. He has done invaluable work on Artificial Heart research, so did allot of individuals no one will ever remember.
One name I’m surprised hasn’t been mentioned is Dr. William C. Devries, the man who actually did the surgery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_DeVries He’s never cashed in on his fame, he actually stayed with Symbion for a few years helping to further research when he could have been a very high priced surgeon.
I’ll include a few Dr. Jarvik stories that I remember from Utah;
Several years ago a he was involved with a business transaction that upset quite a few people. Shearson Lehman Hutton was attempting to get a controlling interest in Symbion stock Dr. Jarvik was very vocal in the media telling investors not to sell, within a few days he’d sold his block of stock.
On a more humorous note, when trying to sell a home in Utah he was upset when the new owner refused to continue referring to the dwelling as the ‘Jarvik House’.
Not to be outdone, Marilyn showed up at a medical seminar hosted by Symbion cornering reporters so she could give interviews.
As QtM points out below (and your cite pointed out multiple times), he IS an MD. He IS a doctor. He IS a physician. He IS NOT violating the law, in New York or elsewhere.
Are you eventually going to admit that every one of your accusations (and let me just go ahead and list them, in case you forgot) has been proven wrong (mostly, and I can’t point this out enough because it’s funny, by your own cite):
(cut and pasted from your posts in this thread by me, bolded sections added by me for either clarity’s sake or commentary)
I’m going to give you this, though:
He’s not a surgeon, and the chances are near 100% that he wasn’t doing the cutting. As jmpnmark pointed out, Devries did the operation.
Not liking how he does things does not give you free rein to make unsubstantiated (and sometimes completely incorrect) allegations about their education or abilities, nor does it allow you to essentially accuse them of murder.
Of COURSE people died in the process. That’s what ground-breaking medical research is about. Clark was going to die anyway. The other people who had the Jarvik heart installed into them were going to die anyway. Probably sooner rather than later. Did the Jarvik heart prolong their lives? Yes. Some as much as a year. Were they informed of the dangers inherent in such an operation? Well, I wasn’t there, but I would imagine they had a grasp on the risks. But one can assume that when you’re about to die and you’re given the choice to simply snuff out like a candle or advance medical research so that others don’t have to suffer, you would lean toward the latter.
How many people died while they tested every drug under the sun to combat HIV? How many still die because we don’t know everything about the disease? Are their deaths the responsibility of the researchers who couldn’t find an easy answer, or the doctors who prescribed the cocktails?
Even simpler: Mr. Kitty has cystic fibrosis. He is 48 years old and was just diagnosed at the end of November. His age is STAGGERING for someone with CF (especially someone who has never been properly treated for it), and someone living past the age of twenty with CF was unheard of when he was growing up. They’ve made significant advances in the past decades, but you know what? People still die. They still die early. Thank the gods Mr. Kitty is not at this point, but if he were to have a lung transplant right now, his five-year survival chances would be less than 50%. Am I on a message board decrying James Hardy, questioning his credentials and ethical orientation? Hell no, because it makes sense that when you implant something into a person’s body that doesn’t belong there, you’re going to mess up at first. CF patients continue to make the choice every day about whether to have a lung transplant, knowing full well that it’s still, at our level of medical expertise, with the best doctors in the world, essentially a death sentence. But they do it- some just to eek out those last few years, and some to help advance the research.
The Jarvik heart was successful. That it was implanted and the patients didn’t die within hours makes it a success. It was not the solution they had hoped for, true. But don’t belittle that HUGE advancement just because it didn’t have people running out of the hospital doing backflips two days after surgery.
I’m beginning to wonder if part of the problem relating to medical malpractice and liability may have to do with folks like you, who can’t seem to comprehend that physicians and researchers are human, and the first (or second, or three hundreth) time out isn’t going to be a grand slam.
You accused a man of being too stupid for US medical schools (and in the process took a swipe at European medical schools), being handed a MD because he was in the right place at the right time, misleading the public, violating multiple laws, and MURDER because he doesn’t operate at your ethical level, and you’re upset because I implied you may be slacking in the accomplishment department? Jesus. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that this is a guy who has already assisted in making significant advances in the field before a lot of folks even figure out what they want to be when they grow up, and he has DECADES yet in which to push the envelope even further. Maybe he’ll even manage to do something to meet your expectations. He- and all the other folks out there on the cutting edge- don’t need people like you and the OP deciding if what they’re doing is okay.
Incidentally, I would suggest you learn to spell “licensure” and “license.” In case, y’know, you have to represent yourself to the public. Now THAT was making it personal.
I see in your quote that you have a loved one with CF, which I’m sure has (as it should) influenced your opinions. That is fine, and I applaud you for your strong opinions.
I do not have problems with medical research in general, and in fact likely subscribe to similar view to you regarding tort liability for medical professionals, based on your comments.
What I don’t buy into is hype, and I have problems with people (or companies) that overhype things or self-promote recklessly. I dissaprove of anyone/entity that rushes things/takes risky short cuts in the name of profit/promotion/etc. He has a track record of taking short cuts. I am not the only one who thinks this about the man, but maybe its just because I haven’t gotten my Kool-Aid 7 yet, either.
Overhype is how people get hurt. I’m not going to cite examples here at the risk of you overdramatizing them, but I am sure if you think real hard, you may be able to come up with an example of where, just maybe, a medical company rushed something to market or did some tests they shouldn’t.
He has associated himself with good works, but he certainly has made a pretty good living off of others too. Don’t expect me to genuflect in front of the guy 'cause he isn’t the second coming. Quite frankly he’s in the same camp as Cindy Sheehan in my book regaring self promotion.
All of the individuals whom received these complete heart replacements were individuals that were at the very last stages of heart failure anyway. I don’t think you’ve supported your claim that he has engaged in unethical research, but I don’t expect you to be able to annunciate that claim clearly either given your confusion over whether he was even an MD or not.
clnilsen, your assertions have not stood up at all to objective scrutiny. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you just don’t like the guy, and are just trying to rationalize why it is you don’t like him.
QtM… Gotta say I really respect you on this board, and in fact regarding this discussion I’ll weigh your opinion even higher.
I only know what I’ve read. Yes, I don’t care for the guy much. I don’t like his ethics. An (admittedly) grey area open to interpretation. I don’t like how he markets himself, and most importantly I don’t care for how he uses others. I thought that’s what the point of the OP was. :smack:
Last I’ll post about it; I’m not the only one that has questions regarding him. In the interests of fighting ignorance (or at least exploring others opinions) I’ll post a few links for further reading regarding other people’s opinions of him and his practices.
What, exactly, is it you don’t like about his ethics? What has he done to show you that he is unethical?
Looks to me like this thread has an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that you’re mistaken in your assessment of “how he uses others.”
I find it interesting that you seem to be blaming the death in the 3rd link on the heart when it was actually a stroke that caused it. The artificial heart had to be turned off after the man’s death.
Your other two links are only as damning as the reader wishes them to be. There’s enough innuendo in the first one to insult every person who’s ever returned to college after a lengthy absence. The second link is pretty much a throw away mini-report.
