SNIPPETS: Pfizer: Behind The Logo By Guylaine Bazinet, Amélie Galipeau & Emilie Dezan

What's in a Logo?

In North America, many take medication for disease or illness related reasons, but many also take it in acute episodes. Pfizer drugs are not only sold by prescription, they are also sold over-the-counter, as for example: Advil, Robax, Robitussin and Centrum. There is a huge process before drugs can actually end up in a pharmacy. There has been much controversy around Pfizer as a corporation over the last decade. The following will attempt to briefly examine said controversies including but not limited to how Pfizer's has painstakingly tried to create a logo that in truth, reflects very little of what it hoped it would stand for.

A logo produces an identity for a business or company. The logo of a company is supposed to be aimed at the target audience in which your business is associating their products.  The function of a logo is to initiate an identity of a business and to encourage admiration and recognition for the product of the business, and to provide trust in the company (Lorette, 2014) . There are four common types of logos. These types of logos include illustrated logos, textural logos, symbolic logos and a logo with the combination of the three previous types. The design of a logo is always relevant to the company because it is used for a trademark for the specific company. When a company is developing their logo, it is difficult for the company to create a logo that creates and communicates the business brand. It is important for a company to find a person to develop a logo that will represent what the company is trying to portray to the public. 

At this time the company will be investing money for the creation of their logo. The person who will be creating the logo for the company will spend some time learning about the company and they will create a logo that reflects what the company is (Lorette, 2014). There is no surprise to society, but large corporations find a way for their logo to stand out for the public “deep in public consciousness” (Klein, 1999). Once their logo is seen, people may naturally want to investigate the product being sold. Phizer (2009) states that a logo is the “primary symbol” for a company. 

Logos are important to one company because they are one of the first things that someone is going to see. Their primary function is to recognize and admire the product, and also to inspire trust in one’s company. Logos must be able to target your audience so that it will associate your business with a memorable, simple but yet versatile logo (Lorette, 2014). The meaning of one’s logo is to portray professionalism, stability, positivity and reliability. The logo is a way for one’s company to stand out from other similar companies. Logos can also portray images of values of one’s company (Lorette, 2014). An example of this is in the Pfizer logo has visual features that are distinctive from other companies, therefore set them aside from the rest of the companies. 

Pfizer has recently changed their logo because they wanted to revamp their logo. The shape of their logo is an oval and this concept of an oval was introduced in 1991. There logo was widely recognized across the world. Since 1991, Pfizer has evolved, they are now a different company. There new logo is more accessible and not as formal. The letters on their logo are in italics like they were before and they are more contemporary and they are “friendlier”.  The color of their logo has not changed so much because it is still blue, but they have added a gradient in their color to signify warmth and optimism. Their logo is still using the oval shape for their new logo, but they have tilted it slighting upwards to indicate moving forward and positive change. The new logo “but asks people to take a fresh look at Pfizer because we are not the same company we were in 1991” (Pfizer, 2009).

In 1996, Pfizer was involved in a major disgrace because their pharmaceutical company was involved in “an experimental drug trial for trovafloxacin on Nigerian children the broke global ethical guidelines.” This disgrace was not revealed to the public until December 2000 (Klag, 2013). Trovan is normally used to treat cerebrospinal meningitis, but Pfizer was keen to try their medication out. In the United States there is not many outbreaks of cerebrospinal meningitis, therefore Pfizer went to test their medication on Nigerians in 1996 when there was an outbreak.  When this epidemic was underway Pfizer set up a clinic quickly to try their medication. Pfizer provided a fraud approval letter from the Nigerian Ethics Committee so that they would be able to start the research in Nigeria. Pfizer took advantage of the parents of the sick children and they did not provide informed consent to the parents about the drug trial, Trovan, for the infected children. 

During this epidemic five children died and many children are now severely disabled. Since this epidemic “Nigerians have been skeptical of immunizations and will refuse them out of fear” (Klag, 2013). Informed consent can be influenced by a misunderstanding of the informed consent; so of the causes that can be influenced are “namely, language barriers, socioeco-nomic inequalities, and cultural differences between researchers and participants” (Jegede, 2009). Since there was an obvious language barrier with the participants that took part in the study in Nigeria, there is an ethical issue here because they didn’t receive proper informed consent. Everyone should be treated equally and in the epidemic in Nigeria everyone were not treated equally because some of the children received Trovan which was not tested yet and some of the other children received a medication that had been approved, therefore each individual was not treated equally (Jegede, 2009).

Pfizer has been implicated in many controversies concerning illegal marketing of some drugs. Indeed, we could think of the four drugs, which were “Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug, Geodon, an anti-psychotic drug, Zyvox, an antibiotic and Lyrica, an epilepsy treatment” (BBC News, 2009). The company tried to commercialize these drugs illegally in order to make profit faster. As Corporate Watch (2005) states, “pfizer cares for your health, as long as the company sees profit”. 

According to Evans (2009), Pfizer had also been able to put Neurontin on the market, without the approval of the  Food and Drug Administration, which is the agency responsible to make sure that the drugs introduced on the market are for therapeutic uses and commercialized for the right health related problem. However, in another situation, Pfizer succeeded again to dodge the agency by commercializing “Bextra, a drug approved only for the relief of arthritis and menstrual discomfort, for treatment of acute pains of all kinds” (Evans, 2009). 

In addition, if we look specifically to one particular drug, Viagra, uses to treat erectile dysfunction (ED), we could see how Pfizer played with the innocence of people regarding pharmacology. Indeed, “Pfizer took steps to make sure that Viagra was not relegated to a niche role of just treating men who had erectile dysfunction (ED) due to organic causes, such as diabetes or prostate surgery” (Lexchin, 2006). The goal of the company regarding their strategy to increase the selling of Viagra was to make believe men that the pill was a lifestyle medication. In other words, they tried to teach to men and it was not obligated to be associated with erectile dysfunction. 

Everybody could use it to enhance their sexual performances. “In order to grow the market, Pfizer had to make Viagra the treatment of choice for a much wider population of men. The perceived prevalence of ED needed to be expanded. The impression had to be created that ED was of significant concern to many, perhaps even most, men or at least those over 40 years of age” (Lexchin, 2006). This was clearly another tentative of the giant company to benefit of more profits.  In another situation, Pfizer has been accused to have sold a drug that wasn’t safe for the clients. Maybe these accusations came from the lack of confidence of customers towards the company. Some people were saying that Pfizer didn’t study Celebrex enough, an anti-inflammatory drug with risks for causing a heart attacks. However, Pfizer responded to that and certify that Celebrex was safe.

There is documented evidence that certain physicians have received bribes from Pfizer to support and distribute via prescription illegal drugs. We need only think about Bextra, Lyrica, Zyvox and Geodon that entered the market this way. “Pfizer paid bribes and offered lavish hospitality to healthcare providers to encourage them to prescribe the four drugs” (Gøtzsche, 2012). This is not the only time Pfizer used this tactics though. “In August 2012 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries, especially Wyeth, had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales” (Mattera, 2014). Philip Mattera (2014), linked the situation to “the aggressive marketing” of the company. In another case “Pfizer was accused of encouraging doctors to prescribe its drugs with free golf, massages and junkets to posh resorts” (Mintz, 2012). Illegal payments like these were not rare in the case of the multinational company.

Indeed, such behaviors from the company brought many lawsuits against them. "I think it borders on the criminal that the large pharmaceutical companies, both here and in Europe, are using these poor, illiterate and uninformed people as guinea pigs” (Stephens, 2006). In other words, Pfizer take advantages of many different populations’ lack of knowledge about drugs. Regarding Nigeria, the government sued the giant company. “Nigeria is demanding $7bn in damages from the US company for the families of children it says died or suffered serious side effects when the antibiotic Trovan was administered in the northern state of Kano during a meningitis outbreak in 1996. The Kano state government also has civil and criminal cases pending against Pfizer (Mcgreal, 2007). However, this is not the only case of lawsuit against Pfizer. There is hope, however, as “drug giant Pfizer Inc. has reached an $894 million deal to end most of the lawsuits over its two prescription pain relievers, the popular Celebrex and a similar drug, Bextra, no longer on the market” (Trenton, n.d). However, money cannot restore the health or life of those victims who were promised hope but were rewarded with illness and death instead.

Pfizer claims to execute laboratory trials on animals to ensure that people have longer lifespans, have healthier lives through the researches and develop medicine and therapies (Pfizer, n.d.). They claim to have humane, responsible and ethical manners towards the laboratory animals (Pfizer, 2012). The procedure is carefully planned and done in way that will minimize or avoid distress, discomfort or pain to the animal. The health and well-being of all animals under Pfizer’s care is their "main concern". Pfizer uses the principle known as the ‘3Rs’; replacement, reduction and refinement. If it is possible, there will be a replacement of animals in laboratories for non-animal experiments, including the following: in vitro biological systems, mathematical models and computer simulations. The reduction of animals will be used in every research study, but there is minimum quantity that is necessary in order to get results and attain the aims. Lastly, the refinement is to decrease the possible distress and pain of animals throughout the procedures (Pfizer, n.d.). In a whole, Pfizer seems to care for the animals that are part of their laboratory trials more so than the human beings.

Pfizer Tests Anti-Impotency Drug Viagra on Dogs

Despite Pfizer's claims it is not reality. In 2011 Pfizer tested on approximately 50,000 animals in their laboratories (2,557 dogs; 1,159 primates; 452 cats; 7,076 guinea pigs; 31,560 hamsters; 5,512 rabbits; 1,680 gerbils, and 161 horses). More than a third of these animals underwent painful procedures (Peta, n.d.). "The question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But, can they suffer?’’ (Neavs, n.d.) They go through various conditions for human research, such as: testing new drugs, provoking brain damage, implanting electrodes into the brain, infecting animal with diseases, poisoning for toxicity testing, burning skin, maiming (mutilation), blinding, and many other painful and invasive procedures. Other protocols could also cause serious suffering to the animal, such as long-term electric shocks, social isolation, separation of infants from mothers, withhold of food and water, or repeated breeding. In toxicity testing, the animal usually has no recovery periods. Many die before the completion of the research. Several animal researches use restraining devices to prevent the animal from moving (Neavs, n.d.). This allows the technicians to work without having to hold the animal in place, thus being ‘efficient’.

Rimadyl: The Controversy

Pfizer has admitted mutilating dogs’ genitals in Viagra testing. They were removing the foreskins of the anaesthetized dogs, they then inserted electrodes into the center of their penises, providing it with shocks. These shocks tested the quality of erections after the administration of various doses of Viagra. Even though they admitted doing this they defended themselves saying that this experiment was essential. Andy Borrows, Pfizer’s spokesman said: "Every single pharmaceutical that has ever been made legally has to go through animal testing’’ (News, 1999). Is it really essential to mutilate animals for non-threatening life situations. In another instance, not only do animals suffer in laboratories, but they may also suffer in their everyday life by using Pfizer’s drugs. Pfizer states being “your pet’s best friend”. They give advice on what to do when your domestic animal experiences pain. In the circumstances of osteoarthritis, the owners of the animal is then encouraged to ask the veterinarian to have Rimadyl. After giving this drug, the dog-owner’s noticed their dog’s life deteriorate, instead of improving. Many dogs died or suffered from the usage of Rimadyl (Watch, n.d.).

Add caption

Animals, such as rats and mice, are used in laboratories due to the fact that they have many biological resemblances to the human body. Some rodents are used due to their predisposition to illnesses, such as cancer or even high blood pressure. They are also more effective in developing diseases over a short period of time: days or weeks instead of months or years. Certain species are also a determinant of what the research is going to be about, for example, sheep is an investigation model for osteoarthritis and breakdown of cartilage (Research, n.d.). The American Anti-Vivisection Society says that ‘’Animal research has never proven to be better than other models, nor particularly successful at all.’’ (AAVS, n.d.) A research study showed that there was no correlation between animal and human researches. They concluded that it could be due to the failure of imitating illnesses in the laboratories (Perel, et al., 2007).

The Truth About Cats and Dogs in Animal Testing

Animals and humans could have various factors modify drug responses, such as: species variation, individual variations (weight, age, gender, time of administration, temperament and pathology), drug variation (physical- chemical properties, secondary side effects and drug combinations) and routes of administration (oral administration, intravenous, intraperitoneal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and intrathoracic) (Barnes & Eltherington, 1964). Furthermore, the experiments little to no consideration for the inherent differences in human occupational, societal, lifestyle or geographical factors of other illnesses (Balls, 2013).

Should We Say No to Animal Research?

Some experiments that occur on animals not only fail to estimate the effects of the medication on human beings. Thus, this leads to severe complications. An example of a drug that brought damage to humans is Thalidomide. This sedative was given throughout the world to pregnant women who were having difficulties with morning sickness; causing approximately 10,000 birth defects. Thus, this proves that even though Thalidomide was tested on the animals before, they couldn’t predict the effects it would have on the human body. Other drugs are also known for having negative impacts on the human being, such as: Opren, Clioquinol, Eraldin, Osmosin, etc (Salsburg, 1983). Therefore, there is evidence that animal experiences are probably not the best alternative for testing drugs.

Animal testings are not the only experimental procedures that can be done to determine the effectiveness of the pharmaceutical products. “There is no doubt that the best test species for humans are humans. It is not possible to extrapolate animal data directly to humans due to interspecies variation in anatomy, physiology and biochemistry.” (MacLennan & Amos, 1990) Therefore, other alternatives could be taken into consideration, including the following: In Vitro testing, computer modeling, microdosing, human-patient simulators (Peta, n.d.), and non-invasive imaging. The in vitro testing involves procedures based on human tissue and cell specimens (Neavs, n.d.).

Pic © EmergiCare

Computer modeling is the simulation of the development of diseases and human biology. Microdosing is the administration of low doses of the drug to a test the effects at the cellular level. Human-patient simulator involves a simulated patient (dummy) controlled by computer. Non-invasive imaging include the CT scans (computerized tomography scan) and the MRIs (magnetic resonance imaging) (Neavs, n.d.). All these alternatives prove that there is a way of avoiding animal maltreatment in pharmaceutical laboratories. The latter would also help prevent the abuses we have seen in countries like Nigeria and help ensure that the medication being produced by profit hungry pharmaceutical companies are actually saving lives instead of taking them.