Merck staff in comedy skit on Vioxx

SALES staff at pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co made light of the rough year they had had responding to safety concerns about the company's blockbuster drug Vioxx, sending up the controversy in an in-house skit based in a hairdressing salon.

SALES staff at pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co made light of the rough year they had had responding to safety concerns about the company's blockbuster drug Vioxx, sending up the controversy in an in-house skit based in a hairdressing salon.

In a script replete with puns, staff at Merck, Sharp and Dohme joked that links drawn between the anti-arthritis drug and heart attacks had caused a "wave" in the news they had had to "straighten out".

The Federal Court yesterday heard staff spoofed journal articles that discussed Vioxx's cardiovascular risks and nicknamed one critical author, Eric Topol, Eric "Toupe".

"While the study results were published in the New England Journal of Texturing about two years ago, there was a bit of a wave in the news at that time that ... seemed to get straightened out", the skit script read, according to counsel for the plaintiff, Julian Burnside.

The skit went on: "Toupe et al published an article in the Journal of American Mullet Association examining three Vioxx studies and one dreadlock study."

The class action against the pharmaceutical giant and its Australian subsidiary heard the script was thought to be associated with a mock presentation given to sales staff at end-of-year celebrations.

Merck, Sharp and Dohme and its parent company, Merck & Co, are being sued by more than 1000 Australians, led by Graeme Peterson, who alleges the drug caused his heart attack in December 2003. Mr Peterson claims the company knew about the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx and played it down long before it voluntarily recalled the drug in September 2004.

Merck is fighting the class action, claiming it did nothing wrong.

Australian employee Penny Dobson, who was the director of marketing for Vioxx and other drugs from 2001 to 2003, yesterday testified that the skit was not mocking the concerns raised about the drug.

"The attitude inside Merck marketing and sales was to mock the idea that Vioxx increased ... CV risks," Mr Burnside put to Ms Dobson.

"Absolutely not," she shot back. "It's an internal light-hearted approach to a tough year."

Ms Dobson admitted in "today's climate" such a mock presentation would be considered an "unfortunate" approach, but only because it had been seen outside the company and taken out of context.

"It's unfortunate that people can't have a bit of fun at the end of the year," Ms Dodson said.

The class action also heard sales staff had special training in 2003 to deal with any cardiovascular concerns problems doctors raised about Vioxx, which was provisionally called "mycardio infarctions (heart attacks) -- bollocks".

According to the plaintiff, the training session was set up like a school classroom laboratory using "elaborate"' props such as lab rats, super-soaker water pistols and smoke machines.

The court also heard Merck staff were concerned about an arthritis specialist in South Australia, Michael Horowitz, who was critical of Vioxx and raised concerns about the drug's cardiovascular problems.

"Unfortunately Horowitz is not easily influenced," wrote one Merck employee on the suggestion that the doctor needed to be approached by sales staff.

The trial continues.