Syndicates Books

Extremely one-sided book. Where's the love for Hub Highway? Author choice was ridiculous...Nicholas Sparks was the obvious choice. The lack of asian content (especially pictures) made for a dull, uninspiring read.

NOT recommended.

If you buy and read this book ... you are totally lame and have no life.

The author did a good job at researching and tracing the origins and early history of Pfizer, but made few attempts at addressing criticisms that existed by contemporaries of the founders of the company. Indeed, the criticisms and negative allegations seem to have drawn little if any notice at all from the author. From the human subject tests and experiments that took place under the company's direction early on in Germany-- methods that have been outlawed in the United States, but that were unfortunately too common place in the industry at the time, and that Pfizer certainly wasn't alone in carrying out, to the modern day criticisms of the company from patient advocate groups, Justice Department probes and investigations of government healthcare fraud and off-label marketing that has endangered patient lives (including the 2004 $430 million Neurontin settlement), the public record that is replete with litigation brought by employees whose lives and careers were destroyed by an iron-fisted company that would not tolerate dissension by its own employees on behalf of public safety-- Dr. Peter Rost being the most public, but only one of dozens, and who knows how many others were similarly wronged and simply never filed suit. Similarly recent criticisms of the industry and the company for their methods of using pretty girls rather than medical experts to sell life-saving or endangering drugs to doctors to give to their patients in exchange for golf, ski, or internation vacations (see details of the federal government's suit against the company in the Neurontin case, and allegations from Dr. Rost and others who contend the practice exists today, while even the New York Times and Inside Edition did stories earlier this year on the practice of targeted hiring of former cheerleaders rather than medical experts to push their product).

There seems to be too little notice given to the allegations that Celebrex and Bextra (each exceeding $2 billion per year in profit to the company) were actually dangerous to many patients and that Pfizer did even less than Merck had with vioxx to get it out of patients' hands-- in Pfizer's case acting only after the FDA forced them to.

There was too little discussion of allegations that Pfizer spends a substantial chunk of its research and development budget in executive salaries and direct-to-consumer advertizing, and in buying up biotech companies rather than actual research itself.

There was little notice given to claims made by former New England Journal of Medicine Editor-in-Chief, Marcia Angell's allegations in her book that drug companies-- including Pfizer-- are spending the bulk of the research and development budget on "me-too" (copy cat) lifestyle drugs rather than medicines that are dramatically improving longevity and quality of life. For example, how many erectile dysfunction and toe-nail fungus drugs do we really need when there are far more serious conditions going un-researched, might paraphrase her argument.

Earlier this year there was a report of a lawsuit brought in a New York Federal court against Pfizer for using an Aids treatment outreach in Africa (what was supposed to be a charitable act) in the 1990s instead as an opportunity to turn those would-be patients without their knowledge into human test subjects, since those tests could not legally or ethically be done in the U.S. without patient knowledge. These are solely allegations in a lawsuit unless or until proven, but that remains a substantial issue that perhaps the author could have refuted or explained in this book.

There was little discussion about the political influence that Pfizer wields (U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Charles Grassley, says that the influence of the drug lobby is huge in Washington and that one could scarcely swing a cat by the tail without hitting one. And yet, while that is speaking of the industry's lobbyists as a whole, even this book points out that Pfizer is far and away the largest of the players in that industry. So why not more discussion on the influence they wield with policy makers in Washington?)-- especially in the context of a Medicare Prescription Drug law that prohibited the federal government from negotiating prices. Pfizer CEO in an interview in 2004 explained on PBS' Nightly Business Report that this benefit was expected to only be a wash for the company, with no real profit. But if that was so, why did they lobby so heavily for so long to get that benefit enacted? The real reason is because Medicaid has a provision requiring drug companies to provide them the best price information that was paid for the same drug by any private insurance plan after negotiation. The drug companies are then required to charge Medicaid within only a percentage of that amount-- effectively "capping" the profit on each drug sold to Medicaid. As a result, many drug companies fail to report the real "best price" hoping the government won't catch them and thereby maximize profits. Since 2001, however, there have been a slew of cases brought by the Justice Department worth billions of dollars now for violating this provision. Realizing that those actions were now subjecting them to big time trouble with the Justice Department, and that many of the nation's Medicaid patients are over 65 . . . the obvious solution to "legalize" mark-ups of sometimes thousands of percent (Abbott Labs in one of those cases actually got pegged for marking up its profit against Medicaid by somewhere around 12,000 percent, but they're not alone), was to get those patients off of Medicaid drug plans and rolled over onto a new Medicare drug plan-- in which the fed. govt. would have no right to negotiate for a lower price.

Then there's the political issue of the reimportation of drugs from Canada, and Pfizer's letter to several Canadian pharmacies that they would stop supplying them with any drugs at all if they continued to sell them back into the U.S. Their political argument in Washington was simply that free trade should apply to everything except their pills because of patient safety. And yet, their pills are made in Puerto Rico before being shipped to Canada OR the U.S. They claim a concern that there is no assurance that the drugs are being properly stored once leaving the Canadian pharmacy-- but they're just as properly stored as those drugs are when they get mailed from those Canadian pharmacies to Canadian's homes; or as they are in this country when being mailed from the drug company to the prescription benefit managers that then mail them to America's insured's homes; or as they are when they're shipped from the manufacturing plant in Puerto Rico to either Canada or he U.S. But for more on those arguments I'll refer the reader to Peter Rost's writings or the Congressional record where testimony has been so compelling that the U.S. House of Representatives has twice voted to legalize the reimportation of prescription drugs before the industry's lobby in the Senate was able to block that vote from becoming law.

That issue is not just about the industry-- it is heavily about Pfizer itself. Or else Peter Rost would still be employed as a V.P. there, and most certainly would not still be getting harassed by their investigators at his own home nearly one full year after his termination. What kind of a company does that to an employee a year after they have already terminated them?

What about Pfizer CEO Hank McKinnell sitting on the Board of Exxon Mobile and pocketing money from the two industries Americans are having the hardest time affording-- literally having America and its Seniors by the throat.

These are all issues of great interest to readers in America where the author could have really provided so much more of either explanation or helping the readers and patients better understand why Pfizer does what it does if there are good reasons for it rather than so much of a sales pitch for the company.

The title should have told me the book would be slanted in favor of Pfizer, but only time will tell if in 25 years the Legend of Pfizer will be seen through rose-colored or shame-colored glasses.

I, for one, would like to believe that Pfizer was really improving everyone's lives; but the facts that are in the public domain, combined with a lack of reasonable explanations when opportunity for them are given leave me doubtful. I was hopeful this book might address some of the controversies more, after all of the interviews the author conducted, to finally shed light on the reasons for their conduct if anything other than greed exists. For that I would have liked to see more research done into the criticisms of Pfizer's early years and addressing the criticisms floating around in today's world.

My critique, then is not about the literary style of the author or anything. I have nothing bad to say about that. My only criticism would be on what at least seemed to me to have been too limited breadth of fact-gathering and in the analysis of the facts that were gathered without the context of public record allegations; and a greater analysis of how all of the parts do or don't fit together.