 |  |
 |  |  | |||||||
|
--- Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study
It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some money back from their research. Anth "Roman Bystrianyk" news:4f28e591.0411041728.7eb73bbc@posting.google.com... > http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=374 > > Tom Armitage, "Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study", Reuters > UK, November 5, 2004, > Link: > http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6721666§ion=news > > U.S. drugs giant Merck & Co Inc. should have pulled its Vioxx > painkiller from the market four years ago, because data showing it > raised the risk of heart attacks has existed since 2000, Swiss > scientists said on Friday. > > In a report for British medical journal The Lancet, researchers at the > University of Berne said there was substantial evidence of the > dangerous side effects of the drug by the end of 2000, but the > mounting data was not analyzed properly. > > "Our findings indicate that rofecoxib (Vioxx) should have been > withdrawn several years earlier," the scientists said. > > Merck did not recall Vioxx, a COX-2 inhibitor taken by about 20 > million Americans, from the worldwide market until five weeks ago. > > "The company could and should have made the statement several years > back, when the data we analyzed were readily available," Matthias > Egger, a professor at the university's department for Social and > Preventative Medicine, told a news conference. > > The Swiss research follows newspaper reports earlier this week that > Merck had tried to fight mounting concerns about the drug's safety in > order to protect sales. > > No one was immediately available at Merck to comment on the findings. > > The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a study > estimating that Vioxx could have caused about 28,000 heart attacks or > deaths since it was approved in 1999. > > Merck's shares have slumped around 40 percent since the recall, and > analysts estimate that it could face a bill of between $10 billion and > $15 billion in litigation. > > INDEPENDENT EVALUATION > > The Swiss scientists performed a meta-analysis on the data, taking in > results from past studies, some of which were available on the FDA Web > Site. They found that patients who took Vioxx were at greater risk > even after a few months, regardless of how much of the drug was taken. > > Using 18 randomized controlled trials and 11 observational studies, > researchers saw that heart-attack risk more than doubled when Vioxx > was taken. > > By the end of 2000, 52 heart attacks had occurred in 20,742 patients, > the researchers said. Of these, 41 were patients using Vioxx. The > increased heart-attack risks became apparent in studies which were > evaluated by external watchdogs. > > "It could be that without independent evaluation of the data, the > assessment of adverse effects is biased so that the risks of a drug > appear smaller," Egger said. > > "We therefore recommend that all studies be carried out with > independent external data evaluation." > > Drug licensing authorities should review their procedures, the study > concluded, to ensure that data released after the drug launch is > analyzed for signs of side effects. > > The authors also said an independent panel of experts should > investigate why manufacturers and licensing authorities did not > evaluate the data available on Vioxx sooner. > > In an editorial in the journal, editor Richard Horton criticized both > Merck and the FDA, saying they acted out of "ruthless, short-sighted, > and irresponsible self interest." > > "The licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of > unambiguous evidence of harm have been public-health catastrophes," > said Horton. > > "This controversy will not end with the drug's withdrawal." > > The study was part of a wider investigation into anti-inflammatory > drugs and their side effects conducted by the University of Berne on > behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due > mid-2006.
Actually, it is not OK for that. There should be a thorough investigastion and, if sufficient evidence is found, a criminal action should be commenced. In NY, the homicide statue contains a part where depraved indifference to human life is condisdered to be the equivalent of intentional murder. That works for me, with the right evidence. "Anth" news:418bb48e$0$116$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net... > It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some money > back from their research. > Anth > > "Roman Bystrianyk" > news:4f28e591.0411041728.7eb73bbc@posting.google.com... > > http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=374 > > > > Tom Armitage, "Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study", Reuters > > UK, November 5, 2004, > > Link: > > http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6721666§ion=news > > > > U.S. drugs giant Merck & Co Inc. should have pulled its Vioxx > > painkiller from the market four years ago, because data showing it > > raised the risk of heart attacks has existed since 2000, Swiss > > scientists said on Friday. > > > > In a report for British medical journal The Lancet, researchers at the > > University of Berne said there was substantial evidence of the > > dangerous side effects of the drug by the end of 2000, but the > > mounting data was not analyzed properly. > > > > "Our findings indicate that rofecoxib (Vioxx) should have been > > withdrawn several years earlier," the scientists said. > > > > Merck did not recall Vioxx, a COX-2 inhibitor taken by about 20 > > million Americans, from the worldwide market until five weeks ago. > > > > "The company could and should have made the statement several years > > back, when the data we analyzed were readily available," Matthias > > Egger, a professor at the university's department for Social and > > Preventative Medicine, told a news conference. > > > > The Swiss research follows newspaper reports earlier this week that > > Merck had tried to fight mounting concerns about the drug's safety in > > order to protect sales. > > > > No one was immediately available at Merck to comment on the findings. > > > > The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a study > > estimating that Vioxx could have caused about 28,000 heart attacks or > > deaths since it was approved in 1999. > > > > Merck's shares have slumped around 40 percent since the recall, and > > analysts estimate that it could face a bill of between $10 billion and > > $15 billion in litigation. > > > > INDEPENDENT EVALUATION > > > > The Swiss scientists performed a meta-analysis on the data, taking in > > results from past studies, some of which were available on the FDA Web > > Site. They found that patients who took Vioxx were at greater risk > > even after a few months, regardless of how much of the drug was taken. > > > > Using 18 randomized controlled trials and 11 observational studies, > > researchers saw that heart-attack risk more than doubled when Vioxx > > was taken. > > > > By the end of 2000, 52 heart attacks had occurred in 20,742 patients, > > the researchers said. Of these, 41 were patients using Vioxx. The > > increased heart-attack risks became apparent in studies which were > > evaluated by external watchdogs. > > > > "It could be that without independent evaluation of the data, the > > assessment of adverse effects is biased so that the risks of a drug > > appear smaller," Egger said. > > > > "We therefore recommend that all studies be carried out with > > independent external data evaluation." > > > > Drug licensing authorities should review their procedures, the study > > concluded, to ensure that data released after the drug launch is > > analyzed for signs of side effects. > > > > The authors also said an independent panel of experts should > > investigate why manufacturers and licensing authorities did not > > evaluate the data available on Vioxx sooner. > > > > In an editorial in the journal, editor Richard Horton criticized both > > Merck and the FDA, saying they acted out of "ruthless, short-sighted, > > and irresponsible self interest." > > > > "The licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of > > unambiguous evidence of harm have been public-health catastrophes," > > said Horton. > > > > "This controversy will not end with the drug's withdrawal." > > > > The study was part of a wider investigation into anti-inflammatory > > drugs and their side effects conducted by the University of Berne on > > behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due > > mid-2006. > >
Mark Probert wrote: > In NY, the homicide statue contains a part where depraved > indifference to human life is condisdered to be the equivalent > of intentional murder. In California, while describing the elements of a crime, neglect to perform a requred duty is the same as intent, as when running a stop sign/red light or speeding without realizing it.
The thing is though this kind of behavious is happening all the time, it is how they work. The play down risks, exclude evidence from reports etc and they have too much control. They are not worth trusting imo, their game plan says money is their no#1 motive people's health ranks later. Anth "Mark Probert" wrote in message news:9BOid.30673$fF6.8645113@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net... > Actually, it is not OK for that. There should be a thorough investigastion > and, if sufficient evidence is found, a criminal action should be > commenced. > > In NY, the homicide statue contains a part where depraved indifference to > human life is condisdered to be the equivalent of intentional murder. > > That works for me, with the right evidence. > > "Anth" > news:418bb48e$0$116$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net... >> It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some > money >> back from their research. >> Anth >> >> "Roman Bystrianyk" >> news:4f28e591.0411041728.7eb73bbc@posting.google.com... >> > http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=374 >> > >> > Tom Armitage, "Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study", Reuters >> > UK, November 5, 2004, >> > Link: >> > > http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6721666§ion=news >> > >> > U.S. drugs giant Merck & Co Inc. should have pulled its Vioxx >> > painkiller from the market four years ago, because data showing it >> > raised the risk of heart attacks has existed since 2000, Swiss >> > scientists said on Friday. >> > >> > In a report for British medical journal The Lancet, researchers at the >> > University of Berne said there was substantial evidence of the >> > dangerous side effects of the drug by the end of 2000, but the >> > mounting data was not analyzed properly. >> > >> > "Our findings indicate that rofecoxib (Vioxx) should have been >> > withdrawn several years earlier," the scientists said. >> > >> > Merck did not recall Vioxx, a COX-2 inhibitor taken by about 20 >> > million Americans, from the worldwide market until five weeks ago. >> > >> > "The company could and should have made the statement several years >> > back, when the data we analyzed were readily available," Matthias >> > Egger, a professor at the university's department for Social and >> > Preventative Medicine, told a news conference. >> > >> > The Swiss research follows newspaper reports earlier this week that >> > Merck had tried to fight mounting concerns about the drug's safety in >> > order to protect sales. >> > >> > No one was immediately available at Merck to comment on the findings. >> > >> > The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a study >> > estimating that Vioxx could have caused about 28,000 heart attacks or >> > deaths since it was approved in 1999. >> > >> > Merck's shares have slumped around 40 percent since the recall, and >> > analysts estimate that it could face a bill of between $10 billion and >> > $15 billion in litigation. >> > >> > INDEPENDENT EVALUATION >> > >> > The Swiss scientists performed a meta-analysis on the data, taking in >> > results from past studies, some of which were available on the FDA Web >> > Site. They found that patients who took Vioxx were at greater risk >> > even after a few months, regardless of how much of the drug was taken. >> > >> > Using 18 randomized controlled trials and 11 observational studies, >> > researchers saw that heart-attack risk more than doubled when Vioxx >> > was taken. >> > >> > By the end of 2000, 52 heart attacks had occurred in 20,742 patients, >> > the researchers said. Of these, 41 were patients using Vioxx. The >> > increased heart-attack risks became apparent in studies which were >> > evaluated by external watchdogs. >> > >> > "It could be that without independent evaluation of the data, the >> > assessment of adverse effects is biased so that the risks of a drug >> > appear smaller," Egger said. >> > >> > "We therefore recommend that all studies be carried out with >> > independent external data evaluation." >> > >> > Drug licensing authorities should review their procedures, the study >> > concluded, to ensure that data released after the drug launch is >> > analyzed for signs of side effects. >> > >> > The authors also said an independent panel of experts should >> > investigate why manufacturers and licensing authorities did not >> > evaluate the data available on Vioxx sooner. >> > >> > In an editorial in the journal, editor Richard Horton criticized both >> > Merck and the FDA, saying they acted out of "ruthless, short-sighted, >> > and irresponsible self interest." >> > >> > "The licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of >> > unambiguous evidence of harm have been public-health catastrophes," >> > said Horton. >> > >> > "This controversy will not end with the drug's withdrawal." >> > >> > The study was part of a wider investigation into anti-inflammatory >> > drugs and their side effects conducted by the University of Berne on >> > behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due >> > mid-2006. >> >> > >
"Anth" > It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some money > back from their research. > Anth No it's not. Don't be a twit. More evidence seems to be coming to light that there were known problems with Vioxx at least four years ago. If these concerns bear out, if it comes to light that Merck knew of risks they weren't publicly declaring, then the higher-ups at Merck ought to face criminal charges. Mark, MD 1 2 3 4 Next » Related Discussion: why would smoking nessesitate leg amputation (1 posts) LYCOPENE AND HEART DISEASE (3 posts) wanna meet someone right now - it dont cost nuthin - why not? 7313 (1 posts) HIMALAYAN GOJI BERRY JUICE (3 posts) Top Discussions From Our Archives Other Discussion Categories Diabetes Symptoms Health Care Policy Health Care Providers HMO
|
| ||||||||
 |  |
