Guy in charge of PSU investigation is also accused of coverup
Seriously, is anyone awake at PSU???
The probe will be headed, though, by a man with a track record of protecting powerful institutions from the consequences of their inaction: the chairman and CEO of the Merck pharmaceutical company, Kenneth C. Frazier. A Penn State alum and Harvard-trained lawyer, Frazier is best known for his phenomenal success in defending a sordid chapter in Merck’s recent past—its years-long silence about the safety problems of the popular painkiller Vioxx.
November 16th, 2011 at 1:57 PM ^
Hey is there a game on Saturday?
Nebraska week! Nebraska week! Nebraska week! Keep the red out Saturday.
November 16th, 2011 at 1:59 PM ^
Correct me if I'm wrong, but LiL' Red looks to be twerking in that pic.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^
Lil' Red loves to twerk it. He puts his game down, flips it and reverses.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
Spins it round his head twists it like a helicopter, so I'm told.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:34 PM ^
What came first? Minor league baseball events or Nebraska?
November 16th, 2011 at 4:28 PM ^
we'd rather you thought about beating OSU :)
November 16th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
This presumes that there actually were safety problems with Vioxx which were covered up, which is far from certain.
Rather than buy his way out of trouble in the Vioxx litigation, Frazier decided to aggressively battle the lawsuits, litigating each of the individual cases and prevailing on the vast majority of them. Not really the action you would expect from one who truly believes his company was liable.
Pharmaceutical companies aren't necessarily guilty of wrongdoing every single time they're sued.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
What???
You mean Defendent + Corporation doesn't automatically equal evil?
My mind is blown.
/heavy s
November 16th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
That's not what the guy at Occupy Oakland told me.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
Even if that is true, do you REALLY want somebody who is known for defending corporate scandal to be in charge of a major scandal investigation?
I mean the message that this sends is all kinds of wrong...
November 16th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^
Guh please stop
November 16th, 2011 at 2:26 PM ^
you're misrepresenting the facts of the Vioxx cases. there really was no dispute over whether Vioxx caused a greater incidence of health problems than NSAIDs and Celebrex, the issue really was whether Merck adequately represented those risks to doctors and the public.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^
...but the Vioxx stuff was unbelievable. They were found liable by 30 states and paid them in addition to a jury verdict in another case and the settlements.
They have to vet all their TV ads through the FDA now.
Merck knew of the problems from their own studies and lied in its adverttising.
If you don;t believe that there was truth to the allegations, then you probably don't believe the grand jury report in the Sandusky case.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:21 PM ^
drug be abruptly pulled from the market? Let's not get into a philosophical debate about the scumminess of Big Pharma, but just look at their recent past.
November 16th, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^
work for them? If not, google this bad-boy. This ain't politricks; this IS corporate nasty. And to have someone with such a rep heading up your investigation of an existing cover-up is plain-a** dumb, ESPECIALLY in the current environment.
November 16th, 2011 at 8:07 PM ^
November 16th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^
There were problems with Vioxx from the beginning and Merck led treamendous efforts convincing physicians ( me ) and you guys there were not. This was an FDA low. Merck also got this med fast tracked as an breakthrough drug when it was clearly not.
November 17th, 2011 at 10:03 AM ^
As a lifelong cog in the wheel of Big Pharma, I can tell you that it is scummy. I worked for the biggest pharma company for a decade and we tossed almost every NCE that did not fit the blockbuster profile (once a day oral dosing for a chronic treatment). My brother has heart problems attributable to Darvocet. A few of my clients have quality issues that are never addressed because they can be masked by the fact that the patient is terminal anyway. HOWEVA, I can also tell you that it saves millions of lives every year and improves the quality of life for millions more. My son was concieved only with the help of a Sandoz product, I am alive because of Lilly product. As far as the Slate article goes, it does misrepresent some facts - the claim that Vioxx caused 88k - 140k cases of heart disease is misleading. McDonalds, fried food and poor lifestyle choices caused those cases, Vioxx exacerbated them. So before we jump on the anti-pharma bandwagon, remember that they aren't making coca cola, or shoes or widgets and that the only industry more regulated than pharma is the nuclear power industry. Like any other industry there is good and bad. The people on the ground really do care about making their drugs safe. The folks in corner offices in NYC are the ones who care about more about shareholder value than the patients, unfortunately, this is the world we live in.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^
A. The Merck thign wasn't a "coverup." Even assuming that everything alleged against Merck concerning Vioxx was true, Frazier stil simply did his job. His job, as GC, was to act in the best interests of the company. Merck in turn, had a legal responsibility to protect shareholder value.
B. Penn State is in a tough position. They're almost certainly hiring an outside firm to do the actual investigation. It's not like Frazier himself is reviewing materials and interviewing everyone involved. But that firm is going to need support in case anyone stonewalls them. They have to have the backing of someone that they can call and say "so and so isn't cooperating, can you help?" and have that person actually be able to do something. That person almost has to be a trustee. All trustees are going to have some sort of conflict of interest. They're a trustee, they're obviously going to have major ties to everything about the university. And as we have seen, the second mile was the de facto official charity of Penn State, meaning almost everyone involved is going to have some tie to that organization. Conflicts abound, but that doesn't mean Penn State isn't going to do the right thing, and I can see why it might be a good idea to have a lawyer who runs what has to be one of Penn States largest corporate benefactors heading the investigation.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:21 PM ^
Merck also had a legal responsibility to its customers/patients. Which is more important, from a legal perspective? It seems you think it is okay to rank shareholder rights above any other legal rights. That is a morally bankrupt position.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:27 PM ^
everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
...the defense. If everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, then find a rudderless person to defend a clear criminal.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^
I'm sure that if you are ever in trouble you will go out and find the first "rudderless person" you can find to defend you. Good luck with that strategy.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:53 PM ^
...and I did it, I will get an attorney, but not a vigorous defense. I will just want the sentence reduced if possible. If I didn't do it, then I want a vigorous defense by a "ruddered" person since I am innocent.
But, some people who "did it" want off "scott free" and look for a sleazy guy. I am not that person. If I did it, I will do the time.
November 16th, 2011 at 7:18 PM ^
Sandusky agrees with you.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^
So when a lawyer defends an accused murderer, is he placing murderer's rights above murder victim's rights?
To the extent that Merck was successful in defending itself in courts, it WASN'T legally responsible for the Vioxx claims.
November 16th, 2011 at 3:33 PM ^
We are talking about rights arising out of a legal duty. Your criminal defense attorney scenario makes noe sense. What legal duty did that defense attorney have to the victim?
Not sure what your second point is, but plenty of liable people settle lawsuits. If you are saying that since there was no judcial determination that Merck was liable, then there was no legal obligation to pay ANYTHING out....then I wonder if that thinking would invite EVEN MORE frivolous lawsuits by sharehoolders who question paying ANYTHING out in settlement in the Vioxx cases.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
I'm only speaking after the fact. Of course Merck had a legal and moral responsibility to provide safe products to the public. But once they had already allegedly failed those responsibilities, that's when the GC involved starts looking out for the company and the company has to start considering shareholder value. This includes considering questions such as: is it better to settle quickly and put the situation behind us or should we fight and try and lower the settlement value? Again, that was his job.
Penn State, as a state institution, is in a different situation than Merck. The "shareholders" aren't people with money invested in the university. It's the State, the alumni, the students, etc. I would imagine that re-establishing the public trust is far more important than limiting potential liability.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
....he was general counsel when they broke the laws in the first place, wasn't he? Why is he so bad at stopping the company from violating the rights of people (but makes them money) YET so good at protecting the rights of shareholders (makes money)? Maybe he is just greedy?
Further, the equation is not "maximize shr value = smaller settlements." That is way too simplistic. It is what is in the best interests of the company. Maybe "owning up" and paying bigger settlements is better for the Merck PR and would make the shrs more money in the long run? I think it would have done them better.
And, if he concludes Merck "did it" then how would any shr be able to complain about a full settlement amount? The file a shr rights action and claim he shouldn't have paid what was legally obligated to be paid? NO, that would be frivoulous. In fact, there wwas nothing here that could cause shr action one way or another.
Under that simplistic view a shr should sue any time a company does not engage in extensive fraud or buy off the authorities because even if it only gets caught part of the time (as is typical), then it makes financial sense to do it ALL the time.
The role of a GC is much more complex than just "minimizing settlements" and a LOT of other GCs would have been able to both fulfill their job duties AND moral obligations.....but not this guy.
Resorting to "just doing my job" without even determining what that means is just a way out for his concious.
November 16th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^
Did you even read my post? I said it's not just about limiting settlements:
This includes considering questions such as: is it better to settle quickly and put the situation behind us or should we fight and try and lower the settlement value?
And no, he was not GC when Vioxx was pulled from the market. He was at Merck, but I can't find any information concerning any involvement he may have had in the problems that led up to the Vioxx lawsuits. I'm not willing to presuppose his involvement just to stoke my own Anger at the situation.
Again, PSU is different than Merck. Different set of circumstances. I highly doubt PSU would chose a scorched earth defense with child molestation involved. And assuming the Board has chosen to do an honest investigation, there's no reason not to pick a guy with the qualifications of Frazier to lead it.
Finally, have you ever seen shareholder lawsuits? They get filed over EVERYTHING.
November 16th, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^
..but they are frivolous. It is precisly their lack of merit that is the reason that your job is not to avoid frivolous ones (like the ones that could have been filed against Merck.
You may highly doubt PSU would chose a scorched earthe defense in this case...but it sure seems like they are setting it up that way.
And, while you are right that there are reasons to pick someone qualified for the job....there are more reasons not to pick a guy who defended Merck's action with Vioxx. PSU has a real PR problem...
November 16th, 2011 at 3:58 PM ^
It seems pointless to argue with you, but again, why does the fact that he chose to fight lawsuits in one totally dissimilar circumstance make it look like PSU is going to bury this?
Merck had good reasons to fight the avalanch of lawsuits, and they actually won quite a few of them. Just because that strategy was succesful for Merck does not mean that Frazier would even think of suggesting the same strategy for PSU. And frankly, they're not even at that point of the process yet. Whatever evidence will harm PSU in civil trials is going to be discovered one way or another. Weather its through criminal investigation, civil litigation, or the PSU committee's investigation. In fact, PSU counsel has almost certainly already circulated an order to maintain any and all documents related to Sandusky.
Since we're in the habit of pedicting exactly what PSU will do from very limited tea leaves, let me propose this. If PSU really wanted to coverup whatever roll they had in this matter, wouldn't they hire a guy who did settle early in previous scandals. After all, the easiest way to keep a cap on information is not to go to trial, but rather to settle before discovery ever takes place and include a confidentiality clause.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:05 PM ^
There are no guarantees Frazier will treat the PSU situation the same way. But, he did get his position as CEO by being an attackdog in the Vioxx case. It is easily the thing he is best known for.
Appointing a guy like that does not bode well (even though he could surprise us) and is a bad PR move in my opinion.
November 17th, 2011 at 9:55 AM ^
skinny post!
November 16th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
His job, as GC, was to act in the best interests of the company. Merck in turn, had a legal responsibility to protect shareholder value.
This is why this hiring is troubling. You are investigating a scandal where people are accused of protecting the institution over abused children. And you hire someone who is well-know for protecting an institution to lead the "investigation to find out the truth".
That smells like they are not really interested in finding out the truth.
That says PSU is getting somebody to make sure there is no further damage to the institution.
November 16th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^
As I said right above, the best interest of Penn State isn't to cover this up. It's to expose it all to re-establish the public trust. There's nothing in Frazier's background that says he's not fully competent to lead an honest investigation, despite what some muck-raking journalist will have you believe.
November 16th, 2011 at 3:27 PM ^
The standard in a case like this is to hire a former prosecutor or attoney general. That is not what PSU has done. That invites questions. Why do something that would invite further questions?
November 16th, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^
Is there a former prosecutor or attorney general on the board of trustees? Who are the other people on the Committee? Have they been anounced yet or is it still just the State Education guy? There's a lot more questions to be answered before you can definitively shout "COVERUP!" Hell, maybe Frazier was the guy most pissed off in the room and argued hardest to dig up every little piece of dirt in the whole scandal? Maybe that's why he got the post. Point is, you don't know.
Listen, it's not like Frazier is doing the investigating. Someone will be hired to file a full report for the Committee to sign off on, probably someone that does these types of investigations. There's no reason to get up in arms about Frazier being the chariman of the Committee.
Also, it's not like the reporter of the original story doesn't have a bone in the fight. She was imbedded with a Plaintiff's attorney when they were at Trial with Merck concerning Vioxx. Think she has incentive to tie the PSU story into one in which she wrote a book about?
November 16th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
I'm begining to wonder how much more disturbing this story can actually get
November 16th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
To protect psu...everyone else is doing it. Joepa sold the family house to his wife for a dollar. Joepa takes cya serious...hence the high powered lawyer for someone who hasn't been indicted on any charges...cya!
November 16th, 2011 at 3:15 PM ^
I was there. I worked for Merck when Vioxx was launched. Vioxx was not a perfect medication but it did help some people. Physicians are not infallible in the Vioxx case because they were presrcibing the medication to high risk individuals. People that were not studied.
Frazier was not even around when the drug was being studiedand launched to the public.
I no longer work in that industry, but know a few things about the industry and I know that other similar dugs were yanked at the same for the same reasons. The OP is ignorant in this case. For the OP to relate to link the drug company circumstances and the CEO to the current situation at Penn State is absolutely ludicrous.
I know everything I read on the interweb is TRUE!!!
November 16th, 2011 at 3:32 PM ^
Thank you. I work in pharma compliance and it's ridiculously easy for journalists to troll the public for a reaction, even with behavior that is perfectly legal and ethical because healthcare is such an inflammatory subject. It looks like he had success with the OP.
If people read up on the Sunshine Act, they'll understand right now why there will be a ridiculous amount of irresponsible and sensational articles starting in 2013...
November 16th, 2011 at 3:48 PM ^
I don't like them. But, to say that it is "ridiculously easy for them to troll pharma articles.... because healthcare is such an inflammitory subject" is nonsensical. There are a lot of really positive healthcare stories. It is not abortion, or the issue of whether healthcare should be publicly-funded, those might be considered "inflammatory."
It is the issue of drug companies being honest to the public. No divisive opinions there (unless you are talking to homers in the industry). Most people judge them on the numerous off-label, etc. issues they routinely get busted for by the government.
November 16th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^
The author at Slate studied the Vioxx problem "in and out" and wrote a book on it. But, you worked at Merc, so you can call him ignorant?
If credibility is the issue between you and the article author, then you lose.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:27 PM ^
all of the clinical trial information or inform the public that there may be problems with the drug, but the physicians are to blame?
How much did you do for Merck? Were you in a position to know about Vioxx?
November 16th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
within their organization I almost think a total outsider may be the best person for this investigation. A non-alumnus who doesn't worship Joe Paterno and can be very impartial. It's almost like everyone else is just too emotionally attached to the situation. Just an idea.
November 16th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^
I've been told he can do the Cupid Shuffle while Supermanning dem hos.
Edit: In response to the Nebraska mascot. Reply/login fail. Bad thread to take that in the context too...
November 16th, 2011 at 4:50 PM ^
BigPharma would have no market to 'push' their painkiller drugs if the public did not demand them. While BigPharma produces many necessary meds for heart disease and other serious ailments the majority of their money comes from 'us' wanting to get high.
Until the practice of not being able to go to a different 'pharmacist' and get a 90/90/60 of your favorite candy once a month occurs then BigPharma will contiue to profit off of our addictions.
The earth supplies us with wheat/barley/hops/marijuana/cocoa but we needed more so in comes BigPharma.
Stop the fake ailments, stop the fake 'pharmacists' and most of the problems with BigPharma are solved.
November 16th, 2011 at 7:36 PM ^
has been available as a generic forever. Vioxx was an anti-inflammatory drug. It has no recreational use. Almost once a month I will still have a patient who complains that it was taken off the market because it was the only thing that worked for their arthritis. A know of several orthopaedists who kept the samples when it was taken off the market so that they could still take it for their arthritis. Sounds like a horrible, dangerous drug, huh?
The biggest problem with the narcotic stuff, I agree, is that it is waaay over prescribed but it is not a big pharmaceutical money maker.
November 16th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^
You can't make this stuff up. I wonder if Oliver Stone is taking notes on this investigation...