Jarvik, you fucking sellout

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=clnilsen]
most importantly I don’t care for how he uses others.
[/quote]

The article doesn’t seem to point blame at Jarvik, much less any specific person, for cutting Winchell out. So it’s a bit of a leap to declare Jarvik the villain here.

Runs over the same ground as this thread. Deprecating his credentials, and seeming to hold him responsible for not having his first attempt be a rousing success.

It highlights a new, controversial area. But with Bob Dole and Mike Ditka hawking sex aids, I can’t get too worked up about a doc endorsing a legitimate medical product. Heck, I prescribe a fair amount of lipitor. It’s a damn good statin, better than a number of others. Am I sold on the idea of Doctor endorsements? Not really. But I’m not convinced they’re a bad thing either.

Again, you seem to hold the fact that Mr. Clark had a bad outcome against him. This guy was a goner, and was given the opportunity to try something new, that just might change things for the better. The patient knew the odds were stacked against him. And he expressed gratitude for some of the time he gained. Heck, the first heart transplant patient didn’t last nearly so long. And Denton Cooley had failed to save a patient with an artificial heart in 1969. Should he be censured also?

You don’t like the guy. I get that. I just don’t find a lot of concrete evidence to hold against him.

62

Plenty of doctors push for medical interventions, even brand-name interventions, that they feel will save lives. I’ve seen real, live doctors in ads made for Trogan condoms. I suspect that the doctors don’t care what brand you use, but Trogan was the one paying for the cameras, actors, and air time to promote condom usage, so the doctors played along.

If Jarvik, as someone who has invested significant amounts of time, education, and work into understanding the cadiovascular system, had of his own accord decided that more people need to be reducing their cholestrol, and volunteered his time to Pfizer in order to make such an ad, his ethics would be unquestionable. Since, in reality, Jarvik was probably approached by Pfizer and offered a considerable sum, he doesn’t come off quite so squeaky clean. However, assuming that Jarvik does indeed think that more people need to take care of their hearts (a fairly safe assumption) and that Lipitor is a good product with which to do so (scientifically proven), I can’t see a problem with him taking money to advocate a position he likely supports anyway.

mischievous

63

[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
It highlights a new, controversial area. But with Bob Dole and Mike Ditka hawking sex aids, I can’t get too worked up about a doc endorsing a legitimate medical product. Heck, I prescribe a fair amount of lipitor. It’s a damn good statin, better than a number of others. Am I sold on the idea of Doctor endorsements? Not really. But I’m not convinced they’re a bad thing either. /QUOTE]

Well, with all due respect Dr. Mercotan, an endorsement of a medical product from Mike Ditka is a world away from an endorsement by a recognized physician.

I think that the bioethicist in the NPR story expressed exactly what I’ve been arguing over the thread and I won’t rehash what I’ve said before, but I’ll leave with one question: do you take Pfizer for a bunch of fools? Or do you think that Pfizer might be just the type of people capable of teasing out the subtle effects of a given intervention on a large population? So, can we pretend that this advertisement will only serve as an inducement for people to talk with their doctors about cholesterol, or will it simply change prescribing and purchasing behavior towards Lipitor compared to what the baseline marketshare of Lipitor with physicians and patients making decisions solely upon the science.

I’m going to guess the later.

64

[QUOTE=threemae]
So, can we pretend that this advertisement will only serve as an inducement for people to talk with their doctors about cholesterol, or will it simply change prescribing and purchasing behavior towards Lipitor compared to what the baseline marketshare of Lipitor with physicians and patients making decisions solely upon the science.

I’m going to guess the later.
[/QUOTE]

As I’ve said, it’s a grey area, and I’m not sold on the idea of docs endorsing products at this time or in all circumstances. But given what I’ve seen in marketing and product endorsement, along with what makes a patient come into my office and ask/demand a particular name drug, I consider endorsements from respected academics a bit less pernicious than a lot of the other stuff that goes on.

At least this way, a familiar name and face really puts his rep on the line, and if it blows up in his face a la Vioxx, etc. then said doctor’s credibility and erronious judgement will figure all the larger. In many ways it is more contributing to accountability than goes on with most drug advertising.

Anyway, my larger issue with the thread is with the statements assailing Jarvik for his early education, perceived failings, and unprofessionalism unrelated to his endorsement. I find them to have far less merit. The argument over product endorsement by a ‘famous’ doctor to me seems far more legitimate.

65

[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
… the statements assailing Jarvik for his early education, perceived failings, and unprofessionalism unrelated to his endorsement. I find them to have far less merit. The argument over product endorsement by a ‘famous’ doctor to me seems far more legitimate.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

66

And, of course, if we criticize Dr. Jarvik for openly endorsing a product, we need to criticize doctors who get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing certain medications…trips to Hawaii to attend “seminars,” etc. To me, that is a far more nefarious practice (because of potential conflict of interest issues) than openly endorsing a product.

67

[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
And, of course, if we criticize Dr. Jarvik for openly endorsing a product, we need to criticize doctors who get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing certain medications…trips to Hawaii to attend “seminars,” etc. To me, that is a far more nefarious practice (because of potential conflict of interest issues) than openly endorsing a product.
[/QUOTE]
From what I hear, that sort of “fringe benefit” is far less common than it used to be.*

There are still serious conflicts of interest, including physicians referring patients to specialty hospitals in which they have a financial stake, and surgeons using overpriced orthopedic hardware when they own stock in the orthopedic hardware company (profiled recently in the N.Y. Times).

Jarvik’s shilling for Lipitor is indeed far more open. But there is still the problem of public perception, and the image these ads promote is not beneficial when it comes to public faith in the professionalism and objectivity of physicians and researchers.

Jackmannii, M.D.

*the only semi-freebie trip I ever got was one to Boxboro, Massachusetts for a two-day training course on a new technology. In November. I think I scored a pen or two off the deal. I still feel unclean. :frowning:

68

[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
I think I scored a pen or two off the deal. I still feel unclean. :frowning:
[/QUOTE]

Not me. I’m a pen whore. I’ve taken hundreds of free pens from drug companies. Many of them still write a week or two later. Well, some of them do.

And sometimes they pass out peppermints too.

I missed out on the whole “free Hawaii trip” and other prizes stuff somehow.

I did get some free pizza once or twice, tho.

69

[QUOTE=Qadgop the Mercotan]
I did get some free pizza once or twice, tho.
[/QUOTE]

Fucking sellout.

70

[QUOTE=clnilsen]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Just for the record, you don’t have to have “drank the Kool-Aid” to find your arguments in this thread unpersuasive. I’d never heard of Jarvik before this thread, I knew virtually nothing about the artificial heart, I had no preconceived opinions about him or his invention. All your posts in this thread have done is made me regard you as someone who is irrational and more than slightly dishonest.

71

[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
Fucking sellout.
[/QUOTE]

The wonder isn’t that I have a price, but that the price is so damn low. :wink:

72

A new twist on the Jarvik ads.

from the IMDB

So now he isn’t even the body in the commercial?

73

Oh for Christ’s sake… now are we going to hear about how he couldn’t make the cut on the rowing crew too? Even as the guy who sits up front and calls the stroke?

:wink:

74

Man, there must be some bitter, bitchy doctors wanting a piece of Jarvik’s ass for this to be news. I wonder how much a lobbying firm is getting paid for this to actual be investigated to this level.

75

[QUOTE=EJsGirl]
Oh for Christ’s sake… now are we going to hear about how he couldn’t make the cut on the rowing crew too? Even as the guy who sits up front and calls the stroke?

[/QUOTE]

Coxswain.

Heheh. Cox.

Stroke.

Heheheheh.

76

[QUOTE=Zebra]
…So now he isn’t even the body in the commercial?
[/QUOTE]
Yesterday’s NYT (or maybe published in The Post) had a rather memorable

[quote]
(http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/2535)

77

The IMDB report, perhaps unsurprisingly, is not exactly accurate. Congress isn’t just looking into Jarvik’s association w/Lipitor due to the use of body doubles. They’re investigating endorsements in medical ads, and the issue being debated is whether the Lipitor ad implies that he’s a doctor who can prescribe medicine, which isn’t the case.

I think it’s a worthwhile issue to pursue; Jarvik lends a lot of credibility to the ad, for the vast majority of people who know him only through the Jarvik Heart.

78

[QUOTE=threemae]
I think that the bioethicist in the NPR story expressed exactly what I’ve been arguing over the thread and I won’t rehash what I’ve said before, but I’ll leave with one question: do you take Pfizer for a bunch of fools? Or do you think that Pfizer might be just the type of people capable of teasing out the subtle effects of a given intervention on a large population? So, can we pretend that this advertisement will only serve as an inducement for people to talk with their doctors about cholesterol, or will it simply change prescribing and purchasing behavior towards Lipitor compared to what the baseline marketshare of Lipitor with physicians and patients making decisions solely upon the science.

I’m going to guess the later.
[/QUOTE]

As I read through this thread, it became more and more clear that those of you complaining about Jarvik have missed the boat completely.

You should be pitting the makers of prescription drugs for advertising their products, or Congress for allowing them to do so. The whole idea of advertising prescription medication is ludicrous, given that the desired effect (presumably) is to have hordes of patients asking their doctors to prescribe Monistat or Lipitor or Norvasc or Advair or Cialis or whatever the fuck they think they need for whatever the hell they think they’ve got.

Instead, you choose to focus on Dr. Jarvik, who anyone with half a brain would agree has done more than perhaps one or two people to advance the development of the artificial heart.

When I was a kid, my school supplies were generally provided free of charge by pharmaceutical companies - my mother being an anaesthetist and later a GP, and dad being an orthopaedic surgeon. All the assorted pens and such were the sum total of the advertising for prescription drugs I was exposed to as a child, having grown up in Britain. I thought it was ridiculous then, and the older I got, the more I realized I was right.

Slight hijack - Once, I asked my mother why companies gave her all those pens and notepads and letter openers and calculators and clocks and stress balls and other assorted plastic tat. “So that I’ll consider prescribing their drugs,” she said. For an eight-year-old, I had a remarkable familiarity with prescription drugs and their uses, since there was never anything to read in the house (aside from car magazines) except Merck Manuals and entire cupboards full of the British Medical Journal. So, I asked why she’d consider one rheumatism drug over another when they were both giving her free pens. “I wouldn’t,” she said, “because their pens are shitty anyway.”

She didn’t really say that. But I often wish she had.

79

No reason one can’t question Jarvik’s endorsement of Lipitor and have grave doubts about the side effects of marketing prescription drugs directly to patients.

I don’t see where in the ad(s) Jarvik claims to prescribe this drug for patients, or that it’s implied that he does. It would actually be more ethically dubious for him to get paid for endorsing the drug if he could write prescriptions.

It is somewhat sleazy to show him doing strenuous physical acitivity if the person involved is really a stunt double. Maybe as a show of good faith Jarvik could offer to do the actual rowing under Congressional scrutiny. It would be a good test of Lipitor. :smiley:

80

I don’t see why the article is making a big deal out of this. Sure, to be eligible to have a license to practice medicine you need a medical degree (MD) and to complete post-graduate training. However, many research doctors, especially those with a MD and a PhD, don’t bother with licensure - they just get on with doing important medical research that doesn’t involve direct patient care.

Also, it’s not even vaguely implied in the commercial that he himself prescribes Lipitor to anyone. He says he’s glad he takes it, in part because he’s a doctor (which he is, holding an MD degree).