Report: Big job cuts coming at Merck (thousands of jobs)

[UpInArms]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/26/news/fortune500/merck/

Troubled drugmaker to cut thousands of jobs, refocus research in bid to invigorate pipeline: WSJ.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Merck & Co. is set to announce plans to cut thousands of jobs and scale back its drugmaking operations to better focus on certain types of drugs, a news report said Saturday.

<snip>

The report comes as one of Merck's most important products, its cholesterol-lowering drug Zocor, faces losing most of its $5 billion in sales next year when its patent expires.

Merck (Research), hurt by the withdrawal of the painkiller Vioxx last year and what analysts call weakness in its drug pipeline, has seen its stock slide nearly 70 percent over the past five years.

<snip>

Estimates that Merck will shed up to several thousand jobs was "a good number to work with," the Journal report quoted one person familiar with the situation as saying.

The person declined to say how many plants might be affected, noting that less than a half-dozen wasn't "far off," the report said.

...more...

[napi21]

1. I don't understand this! Haven't the drug companies been reporting

record profits? Patents expire all the time, but they are always coming up with new ones, so what's the big deal????

[arikara]

6. Of course they do

And if they don't have any fresh ideas they simply re-make one that is expiring and tout it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The doctors usually buy into the racket but often the pharmacists will tell you the truth.

That's what happened with Losec and the newer "improved" model Nexium which is nearly identical except that it costs a lot more.

I was taking losec until I cured my acid reflux myself by taking cayenne capsules. Apples work for some people. Heck of a lot cheaper!

[depakid]

18. or they introduce new coatings

and make time release or extended release tablets to try to retain their patent advantage (whether or not there's any sugnificant medical reason to do so).

[still_one]

8. not Merck. They have some big issues

for one the lawsuits regarding regarding the cox II inhibitors is still ongoing

Another is that many of their patents will be going off

but the most important is that they do NOT have that many products in the pipeline

The cost of getting a drug approved in the United States is an extremely long and costly process, and as much as people like to constantly dis the big pharmeceutical companies, they are going to have a very difficult time

[Divernan]

13. FDA whistleblowers get fired; it's not that hard to get drugs approved.

At least, it's not as hard as it used to be, in the sense that if people testing new drugs are having terrible side effects and even dying, that drug should not be on the market for problems like arthritis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, etc. The only time a drug with serious side effects,including the risk of death should be available, is to those who have terminal illnesses.

If Big Pharma get nailed in lawsuits, it's because the drugs they pimped were too high risk to begin with, and/or the test results were fudged or hidden.

The way Bush has prostituted the FDA, along with most other federal agencies, I told my doc I don't want prescriptions for any drugs approved by Bush's FDA. I'll stick with the earlier Rxs. My doc, who is one heckuva well informed liberal, agrees.

[still_one]

17. Digoxin is a perfect example

the drug can be a life saver or it can kill

there is a fine line. I am NOT referring to the cox2 inhibitors, I am talking about a lot of products that help people, but also have side effect. Informed decisions are essential

as is risk verses reward

[liberalhistorian]

2. SIGH. Will this

shit never end? And why do they ALWAYS seem to do this during the holiday season? Do they get a special kick out of it? Does that mean there's more money for their big mucky-muck executive bonuses?

And I can't wait to hear the wingnuts spin this as being the result of the Vioxx lawsuits against Merck, lawsuits which deserved to be filed and most should win. Maybe if they hadn't put forth a product that they knew, according to internal memos, would cause the physical reactions and deaths that it did, they woulldn't have to deal with the legal fallout.

And it seems like they should have been preparing a new drug long before this if they knew their patent on Zocor was set to expire and that sales would suffer.

[cyberpj]

4. It comes during the Holidays so they can subtract the costs they downsize

to look good for the stockholders.

[still_one]

9. think about it this way

would you rather be told BEFORE you did your Christmas shopping, or after?

Getting new drugs out, and going through the approval process is a very costly and difficult job

[Deja Q]

3. They are troubled - maybe the fuckers should take what they're making.

Or would their premiums go up, being declared "a health risk"?

x(

[MellowOne]

5. If they made drugs that helped people instead of harming them

They could make big profits, and keep employees working, Gee, why didn't they think of that?

[Boomer]

10. That's simply not possible

There is no such thing as a drug which is completely free of side effects for everyone who takes it. Humans are too diverse in their individual makeup to react to a complex bundle of chemicals in only one way. Which is also why there will always be a few individuals who survive a pandemic, whether it be the Black Death or even AIDS. Someone somewhere has a quirky gene or two that reacts completely differently to what heals or kills everyone else.

Americans want a quick fix to whatever ails them, just pop a pill, without any downside risks. That's a fantasy no drug company, no matter how altruistic, is going to deliver.

[still_one]

12. I think he is referring to the Vioxx issue

though even that is NOT black and white, and the individuals within Merck who screwed up, along with FDA should definitely be punished, but should the whole company go under? Who would that help?

[Boomer]

14. It's a shared problem

I'm the last one to be an apologist for the drug companies, but everyone shares some responsibility for the things that go wrong.

The drug companies for their miracle-cure marketing that glides over the risk of taking medications.

The doctors who reach for prescriptions without a second thought.

The consumers who want a quick fix without any risk.

And sometimes there's no blame to go around. Just everyone trying to do their best and failing.

My elderly mother died after a series of mini-strokes that I'm convinced were caused by the estrogen therapy she was taking. Trying to stave off osteoporosis for a woman as frail as my mother was probably deemed a valid goal by her physician, and I'm willing to grant that the drug companies weren't trying to scramble her brains.

And my mother was caught balancing the risks of brittle bones against the undefined possibility of risk that accompanies any relatively new medication. My mother, who distrusted most drugs and resisted taking medication, nonetheless was brought down by just such a circumstance.

Knowing my mother's history, I won't be taking estrogen therapy, but I am taking blood pressure medication. High blood pressure will definitely increase my risk of all kinds of problems; taking the medication may also hurt me. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. I'm not comfortable either way, but since I don't have a crystal ball, I'm opting to fight the known risk.

Ladies and gentlemen, roll your dice.

[still_one]

16. You articulated it beautifully

we must be careful NOT to cut our nose off to spite our face

[MellowOne]

19. Drugs company need to do far more research and tests

before releasing drugs to the public. My mother took Vioxx, luckily, she didn't have a heartattack or stroke but many did.

[still_one]

11. that is not an accurate statement

in fact they were the first drug company to give away a product for river blindness in Africa. Its alright though, we will lose the pharmaceutical development to Asia and Europe, along with autos, airplanes, etc.

Soon we will just be a service economy.

If you are referring to the Vioxx lawsuits, should a whole company be destroyed because of a few individuals? In addition, the FDA is partly to blame.

I have no doubt that is we continue we will force the major pharmecutical companies eventually out of the country, and that will hurt us more than help us

Incidently, the prescription drug plan is worthless as the paper it is written on. There is a premium of about 100 bucks a month, a deductable, and after all that then they will cover up to 2500 dollars a year, but anything between 2500 and 5000 dollars will NOT be covered.

I cannot believe that many democrats voted for such a inane bill

[niallmac]

7. I smell outsourcing somewhere in all this.

Or is it just my socks?

[anitar1]

20. I smell it too, and it is NOT my socks or yours. n/t

[teryang]

15. It's all about the label

If risks aren't disclosed, the likelihood of approval is higher. Once any kind of efficacy is established, the only issue is what are the risks. The more risks disclosed on the label, the lower sales will be.

Additional manufacturer and clinical testing misconduct involves failure to disclose adverse drug events.