What ever happened to good old-fashioned, get-your-hands-dirty work?
This canned American life |
What ever happened to good old-fashioned, get-your-hands-dirty work?
This canned American life |
HIGH COURT TAKES ANNA NICOLE
HIGH COURT TAKES ANNA NICOLE |
“The Hammer.”
Rep. Tom Delay, R-Texas, talks to reporters on Capitol Hill Wednesday after resigning as House majority leader. |
“The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio”
The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio” |
Keith Richards Destroys His Knighthood Chances
Keith Richards Destroys His Knighthood Chances |
The Fix
The Fix - – - – - – - – - – - - Sept. 28, 2005 | Morning Briefing: And many “Benator” jokes were made: Ben Affleck insists, or at least his people do, that there is nothing to the rumors that Virginia Democrats are pushing him to run against Republican Sen. George Allen in next year’s elections. As the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, “Why, who should happen to be pondering a move to Thomas Jefferson country but a certain square-jawed media magnet with a taste for liberal politics and millions to spend on it … Ben Affleck!” Affleck and his wife, Jennifer Garner, were seen driving around rural Virginia looking at houses. But what some thought was a potential house-hunting trip was just a fun weekend for the couple, nothing more, according to Affleck’s spokesman, Ken Sunshine. And while Sunshine denies the Senate rumors, he still thinks his client “would be a superb candidate for public office in the future. Right now, he’s very busy directing his first feature movie for Disney, ‘Gone, Baby, Gone.’” (Washington Post) Down, but not out: Kate Moss may have turned into the most publicly shamed model of all time, but she’s not giving in yet. An online gambling site, in a clear bid for publicity, offered the recently unpopular model a $5 million contract to do a campaign for it, but Moss thinks she hasn’t sunk that low. “This story is absolute rubbish … Kate will not be working with this company,” her publicist told the New York Daily News. And a friend of the model’s told Page Six she’s defiant in private, too: “She just told her agent three days ago that she doesn’t give a [bleep] what people think, she will not change her lifestyle because of a tabloid or public opinion.” The one job Moss might hold on to, oddly, is with the cosmetics company Rimmel, for which she just finished shooting a campaign for a product called Recover. And then there are the reports that she has been talking to director Ron Howard about starring in a movie about the fashion industry. Meanwhile, U.K. TV channel Sky One says it’s going to be showing the famous snorting footage that started it all as a part of its upcoming documentary “Kate Moss: Fashion Victim?” (N.Y. Daily News, Page Six, WWD) Also: Money Quote: Turn On: |
A ‘Main Event’ in Old New York
New-York Historical Society |
Kate Moss The ironies of her downfall.

Kate Moss
The ironies of her downfall.
By Amanda Fortini
Updated Tuesday, Sept. 27, 2005, at 6:19 PM PT
If rumors that a model has a coke habit no longer raise an eyebrow, photos of her mid-binge apparently do. On Sept. 15, the U.K.’s Daily Mirror published grainy camera-phone stills of supermodel Kate Moss perched on a leather couch in a London recording studio, allegedly chopping and snorting multiple lines of cocaine with the quick sureness of a practiced user. (According to most reports, Moss used a £5 note to vacuum up five lines in 40 minutes.) The Swedish clothing giant H&M, whose upcoming ad campaign for its new Stella McCartney line was to feature Moss, responded that it would give the model a “second chance.” She had signed, like a contrite schoolgirl, a written statement promising to remain “healthy, wholesome, and sound.” But H&M reversed its position last Tuesday, announcing that the campaign would be ditched altogether. The next day, Burberry and Chanel, two retailers in Moss’ robust portfolio of contracts, followed suit: The former dismissed the model from its fall ad campaign, and the latter stated, cryptically, that it had “no plans” to use her after her contract ends.
The response to H&M’s action (and the subsequent domino effect) has been twofold. In one camp are the irate customers and furious bloggers who maintain that the Swedish retailer, a company that markets its inexpensive clothing to teenagers and young adults, had a duty to denounce such behavior publicly. “After the feedback from customers and other papers,” an H&M spokesperson told the New York Times, “we decided we should distance ourselves from any kind of drug abuse.” Not on principle, mind you, but because feedback indicated that the company’s pardon would harm business. This leads to the second contingent, which calls the company out on its hypocrisy. Drug use among fashion models, this group contends, is rampant, a problem H&M was surely aware of. Moss has thus been unfairly singled out by a company hoping to save itself, as well as by a corrupt industry in need of a sacrificial cleansing. While there is some truth to this—Moss is not the only model who has been reported to indulge, she was just unlucky enough to be caught with her nose in the apparent powder—it does not take into account the fact that, as the face of several multinational brands, Moss has a public image and a responsibility to protect it. And she has not exactly been assiduous about doing so.
There’s no question that H&M’s action was hypocritical. It’s an open secret that models dabble in drugs, particularly cocaine. (“Shock; horror—models do drugs? Oh my God, the world is going to stop,” Michael Gross, author of Model: The Ugly Business of Beautiful Women, said in response to the incident.) It’s even sort of understandable: How else to stay as thin as a prepubescent boy? Though we are regaled with stories of fast metabolisms, of Gisele’s miraculous ability to inhale ice cream and yet fit into Victoria’s Secret’s smallest panties, most of us know that it is a rare woman who can consume an adequate amount of food and remain a good 20 pounds underweight. Many models subsist on a diet that includes generous quantities of cigarettes, caffeine, and cocaine, which doesn’t exactly make for a person who is healthy, wholesome, and sound. Moss has, in the past, admitted to trying drugs because she was worried about getting fat. And at 31, post-pregnancy, she looks not all that different than she did at 14, when her gawky body defined the term “waif.” This emaciated look is what the fashion industry demands of its models, so the policy toward methods of weight-loss has generally been don’t-ask-don’t-tell. If there weren’t pictures to substantiate the drug allegations, it is unlikely a word would have been uttered.
Hypocritical though H&M may be, the fact is that any celebrity in Moss’ position would have met with a similar fate. And indeed they have: Lavazza Coffee dropped Ingrid Parewijck, a Belgian model, after she was caught at JFK airport with several grams of cocaine. McDonald’s and Nutella decided not to renew their endorsement deals with Kobe Bryant after allegations of his possible sexual misconduct surfaced. The reason for the dismissals is obvious: Featuring a celebrity in an ad campaign associates the celebrity with the product (and brand) being pushed; if that celebrity gets into trouble or falls out of favor, it reflects poorly on the brand. Arguably the world’s most famous supermodel (her sloe-eyed visage is on almost every other page of fashion magazines), and a frequent tabloid presence (she’s been involved with Johnny Depp, Evan Dando, Leonardo DiCaprio), Moss is a genuine celebrity. She is not paid just to be a pretty clotheshorse, but also to bestow on a product her glamorous aura. Her lucrative contracts—totaling approximately $9 million a year, by most accounts—surely hinge on the maintenance of the commodity of her celebrity, on staying out of legal trouble and at least nominally above reproach.
For years, Moss has managed to dodge any real trouble. But there have long been chinks in her image. In 1998, she checked herself into a rehab clinic for “exhaustion.” In a rare interview, she admitted that she modeled drunk throughout much of the ’90s. She is almost always photographed with a cigarette in one hand—she is said to have an 80-a-day habit—and a cocktail in the other. Earlier this year, she won libel damages from the Sunday Mirror for false claims that she had collapsed into a cocaine-induced coma in Barcelona. And, over the last nine months, she has fueled rumors by dating Babyshambles frontman Pete Doherty, the music world’s current Sid Vicious. Doherty has been jailed for burglary and last month was arrested in Oslo for possession of heroin and crack. As a spokeswoman for designer Robert Cavalli hinted to the Times (of London): “She is not going to be going out with Pete Doherty and having milk and cheesecake every night, is she?”
The irony is that the rumors of bad behavior, the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle, have always been part of Moss’ allure. The fashion world has long courted, and profited from, her edgy, bad-girl image and her gaunt, post-hangover looks. It was Moss, in fact, who ushered in the controversial “heroin chic” look when she graced the cover of The Face in 1990. But whereas a gangly body is a natural state for an adolescent, for a woman, it is, well, much harder to maintain. And perhaps H&M, understanding this, waited to take the measure of the public’s pulse before acting. An anonymous marketing executive linked to H&M told the Independent, “There has been a period of a few days where people have waited to see which way the wind is blowing on this.” As it happened, the appearance of drugged-out chic was acceptable; the reality was not.
But the peculiar logic of the fashion world may rehabilitate her yet. A weird sort of awe ran through much of the writing on the incident; writers marveled at how amazing Moss looked, dressed in hot pants and Nancy Sinatra boots, even while allegedly getting high in the wee hours of the morning. Others wondered how she treats her body with such disregard and still remains “miraculous and miraculously unimpaired”: What’s her secret? Not surprisingly, in the fashion industry, image is everything. Moss knows this as well as anyone. Like Garbo, she rarely grants interviews, and she never leaves her house in sweatpants but only in some artfully unstudied, impossibly chic ensemble. Last week, after the news broke, she emerged from the Mercer hotel as stylish and as silent as ever. More than a week later, she made only a brief and elliptical statement, released through her agency, saying that she is taking “difficult steps” to address her “various personal issues.” Perhaps, after 17 years, Moss knows to battle the industry on its own terms and that, sadly, if she can come through with her looks intact, that may be enough.
Amanda Fortini is a Slate contributor.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2126381/
Inside the club that influences Vegas’ music scene more than you may know
|
Implant Program for Heart Device Was a Sales Spur
September 27, 2005 By BARRY MEIER By January, about 80 cardiologists nationwide completed an evaluation run by the Guidant Corporation of one of its products, an improved electrical component, known as a lead, that connects an implanted cardiac device to the heart. In exchange for implanting the lead in three patients and completing five survey forms, each physician received $1,000 from Guidant. “The primary purpose of the study was to get feedback on how well the system worked,” said Dr. Wayne O. Adkisson, a cardiologist in Portsmouth, Va., who took part. The program did generate feedback. But internal Guidant documents and e-mail messages provided to The New York Times suggest that the initiative also had another apparent goal – increasing sales of the company’s most sophisticated and expensive heart devices. Those devices are advanced pacemakers called cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, or C.R.T.’s. They cost about $29,000 each. The program proved so successful in increasing Guidant C.R.T. sales that when the survey ended in January, company executives sent around congratulatory e-mail messages, the records show. “It generated 300+ implants,” one January e-mail message stated. “Let’s say that just 25% were incremental … that yields >$2 million in new sales with physicians who are not necessarily Guidant friendly. We paid each physician who completed all five surveys $1,000 so our total cost was $80,000.” In a statement, Guidant said that it ran surveys like the lead evaluation to generate data on how doctors use company products so that it could improve future models. Critics of the industry have long charged that some companies have used research studies to mask what are really marketing efforts that provide financial incentives to doctors to get them to use a new drug. Now, the Guidant documents and recent interviews suggest that the line between research and product promotion may also be blurring where heart devices are concerned. A C.R.T. regulates the beating of one side of the heart independently from the other. The Guidant lead was intended to be easier to use and to reduce the chronic hiccupping that some implant patients develop when a lead from a C.R.T. is placed too close to a nerve. The Guidant records indicate that many doctors approached by the company to take part in its lead study were not those who regularly implanted its heart devices, but rather those more apt to use the units of competitors. Though the agreement signed by doctors taking part in the lead evaluation did not explicitly require them to implant a Guidant C.R.T. along with the lead, they effectively had to do so because of software-related issues. One Guidant document is a chart that indicates that, on average, the monthly number of company C.R.T.’s implanted by physicians taking part nearly doubled during the survey period that began last September. A person professing to be a Guidant employee provided the documents to The Times. The Times provided Guidant either with copies or text from the documents. Guidant, while declining to confirm the records, did not dispute their authenticity. “In order to respond best to the needs of patients and preferences of physicians, Guidant has sometimes utilized market research and evaluation programs of our F.D.A.-approved and -cleared products,” said Guidant. The disclosure of the records comes amid a growing controversy over how heart device manufacturers release data about product failures to doctors and patients. Since late May, Guidant has recalled tens of thousands of heart devices, and some units implanted during the survey were probably among the models affected. The two other major heart device companies, Medtronic Inc. and St. Jude Medical, also said they run product evaluation programs. All three companies said their payments to doctors for taking part in such surveys reflected reasonable compensation for a physician’s time. “Any payments made in connection with such surveys are in modest amounts,” Medtronic said in a statement. A number of physicians who participated in the Guidant evaluation said their involvement in such reviews did not influence which company’s units they implanted. Still, the Guidant survey and ones like it raise questions about what doctors tell patients about any added payments they may be receiving in connection with a heart product’s use, several experts said. Several doctors who took part in the Guidant survey said that they did not tell their patients about the payments they received. It is illegal under federal law in certain circumstances to provide financial benefits to doctors to induce them to use a product or service. In its statement, Guidant said that all of its research and evaluation programs “are intended to comply with applicable laws.” Product evaluation surveys like the Guidant one are far less rigorous than a traditional clinical study of a drug or a medical device in their purpose, scientific rigor and oversight. But several heart specialists suggested in interviews that heart device makers may also be using formal post-marketing studies of devices that the Food and Drug Administration has already approved – to increase sales as they battle for market share. There is little question that many post-marketing studies of heart devices like defibrillators and pacemakers have yielded crucial data, including those that have shown patients implanted with defibrillators survive longer than patients who are treated only with drugs. A defibrillator sends out an electrical charge intended to interrupt a chaotic and often fatal type of heart rhythm. A pacemaker regulates a heart that is beating too fast or too slowly. But other post-marketing studies may yield far less data. Consider, for example, a study that St. Jude Medical is currently running. It began recruiting doctors and medical centers last October to participate in a study intended to follow for two years the health outcomes of 5,000 patients implanted with either a defibrillator or a C.R.T. with a defibrillator made by St. Jude Medical. A copy of the study’s protocol shows that St. Jude Medical will pay $2,000 to doctors or medical centers for every patient. Of that amount, a doctor will get $500 when a device is implanted, with the remainder paid over a two-year period when a physician submits patient data. According to the protocol, the study, which is technically called an outcomes registry, will yield data on how different types of heart patients implanted with the St. Jude Medical devices fare over time. The Times asked four cardiologists not involved in the study to review the protocol. Two of the doctors said that the study might provide St. Jude Medical with some useful data about its device. But the other two doctors said they saw little value in it. One, Dr. Robert Rea, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic, said, “The amount of information that can be gleaned from these kind of trials is relatively limited.” St. Jude Medical, which is based in St. Paul, said it believed that the study would produce valuable information. “We also hope that some of the analyses from the registry will lead to additional product advancements and help us to define specific test hypotheses for future prospective, randomized clinical studies,” the company said in a statement. The company also said in its statement that study data would be given to Medicare and to the F.D.A., the latter to fulfill post-marketing study obligations imposed by the F.D.A. In order to get reimbursement, Medicare now requires doctors to submit data to a national registry it operates when they implant a defibrillator. There is nothing to suggest that doctors implanting heart devices, either in connection with clinical studies or product surveys, are doing so unnecessarily. And several doctors, including those not involved in the evaluation of the new Guidant lead, said that the component offered potential benefits. At issue is the way that electricity is conducted from an advanced pacemaker – a C.R.T. – into the heart. A C.R.T. has three leads. Each carries electrical impulses, which cycle at various rates, like, say, 60 beats a minute. But if the wire put on the heart’s left ventricle is positioned too close to a nerve, the regular electrical impulse it emits can set off involuntary hiccupping. While relatively rare, the problem may require added surgery, which poses risks for the patient. The Guidant lead allows the pulsing position to be changed electronically. Dr. Marc J. Girsky, a cardiologist in Los Angeles who took part in the Guidant survey, said he believed that one purpose was to collect data on the various tests and methods that different doctors used to implant the new lead so that a uniform technique might be developed. “It is not clear what the established technique would be,” Dr. Girsky said. Some physicians like Dr. Girsky who took part in the survey, which was known by the acronym MERITS, often used Guidant devices. But many other doctors involved did not, company records indicate. Along with the January e-mail message that refers to “physicians who are not necessarily Guidant friendly” – an industry euphemism for doctors who are not regular customers – another Guidant e-mail message that month stated that the program was “targeted at our ‘B’ customers.” A spreadsheet also shows that some doctors had implanted few, if any, Guidant C.R.T.’s before September of last year. Dr. Adkisson, the cardiologist in Virginia, was one of them. In a recent interview, he said that about 90 percent of the devices he used in recent years were Medtronic units, and that one of the two hospitals where he practiced had a contract with that company. Still, when approached by a Guidant sales representative last fall about becoming involved in the lead survey, he said he agreed because he liked doing research. “I thought there was enough legitimacy to it to say it was O.K.,” Dr. Adkisson said. Doctors filled out one form when the survey started, one form after each of three implants and one form at the end of the survey. The questionnaires sought technical data about the lead’s use as well as a doctor’s subjective impressions. Dr. Adkisson said that it took him about 10 minutes to fill out each form. As technical data from the survey came into Guidant, company officials projected the impact of C.R.T.’s used by doctors in the survey on revenue, the documents indicate. C.R.T.’s are the fastest-growing and most profitable segment of the heart device industry. Both Ronald W. Dollens, the chief executive of Guidant, and J. Frederick McCoy Jr., the head of its cardiac implant unit, did not respond to written questions related to their awareness of the program In its statement, Guidant said that the data collected from the lead survey was already being put to good use. “In an effort to be responsive to our physician customers, we take feedback from physicians regarding post-market products very seriously,” the company stated. “Data collected were aggregated and provided to more than 30 Guidant product development engineers in June 2005.” Dr. Adkisson said last week that he had yet to see it. |
Recent Comments