Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Merck Should Be Driven Into The Ground  
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1544 times:

Yes, I believe the Merck should be smahsed harder than Enron for this.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041105/hl_nm/health_merck_vioxx_dc

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.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently published a study estimating that Vioxx could have caused about 28,000 heart attacks or deaths since it was approved in 1999.



As a worldwide drug giant, I think they should rot for doing this. I was pretty pissed when I read this.


NO URLS in signature
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1537 times:

Wasn't the Lancet the same medical journal that published the report on the link between autism and vaccinations that then had to be retracted?

User currently offlineRojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

If it comes from The Lancet, then it is not the best source... But if you want Merck to go down and you like to bash a drug giant for pulling a drug voluntarily based on their own studies, then start doing some studies to Pfizer's "Celebrex" and "Bextra", which work exactly the same as "Vioxx" and "Arcoxia"...

Additionally, Merck voluntarily pulled "Vioxx" from the market compared to Bayer, who pulled "Baycol" from them market just after it killed many people and when they started getting law suits (after all, it is said they had enough evidence from studies before they decided to pull Baycol)...



User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

They found they made a mistake and they have done and are doing everything they can to make it right. What do you people want? A drug that will turn back time and undo all the wrongs?

If they had let the drug stay on the market until the FDA called it unsafe I might agree with you but geez.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

"If it comes from The Lancet, then it is not the best source."

Yes, People magazine is, I suppose.

As far as responsible pharmaceutical giants go, Merck is probably THE most responsible of the lot. And the most dedicated to basic research. While data for Vioxx may have existed since 2000, much of this data was susceptible to varying interpretations.


User currently offlineRojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2431 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1479 times:

Yes, People magazine is, I suppose.

It was only one medical journal saying that and not the most respected one... That is why I said: "not the best source"... but I can see you don't know anything about pharmaceuticals and medicine with your People magazine comments!!



User currently offlineDan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1471 times:

Oh goodie, my mom was on this shit and just got off after they pulled it. And, I am upset, But noone should have to loose their jobs like that. Maybe the exec. board, but not the actucal workers, they diserve better than that.


-Dan



A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
User currently offlineAir2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1470 times:

Let's see, Merck also makes some cancer drugs, HIV drugs, hypertension drugs, hair loss drugs and a couple of more. Those are what I found on their web page. I'm sure they also handle some vaccinations and some of the more mundane drugs.

Merck pulled Vioxx after determining it was dangerous to people. They did not wait for a recall, they did not wait for a lawsuit, they pulled it.

Now all the ambulance chasers, I'm sorry, consumer advocate trial attorneys are salivating at taking on a pharmaceutical giant because they know that there is money to be had. Merck doesn't spend any of its revenues on R & D; the money is just sitting on the greedy company's balance sheet.

They'll try to kill Merck and then what happens to the drugs Merck manufactures or more importantly, to the research its already sunk into some future miracle medication?

Do you know hard it must be to make a statistically significant correlation between drug use and possible side effects? I'd wager most of the people taking Vioxx regularly are older 50+. These are people who are already suseptible to any number of ailments, including heart disease and hypertension. It may well have taken 4 years to put together a statistically significant relationship.



User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1462 times:

Now all the ambulance chasers, I'm sorry, consumer advocate trial attorneys are salivating at taking on a pharmaceutical giant because they know that there is money to be had.

John Edwards probably will be the first one in line.



"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16940 posts, RR: 48
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

"Yes, I believe the Merck should be smahsed harder than Enron for this."

Thank God it's a big evil corporation that doesn't have any employees that are humans with families and dependents or anything...



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineWellHung From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Not only does Merck make all the drugs, but they treat people around the world... FOR FREE. Perhaps you should do some research on their work with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Harvard on AIDS and river blindness before you start saying they should burn. If they knew about this and supressed it, there should be a severe punishment. But considering they HELP people instead of just making rich people richer (Enron), your analysis of the situation is horrible.

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Sure, let's send some 65,000 workers into unemployment to satisfy your vengeful feelings. Sure, there should be payback. Those who made the decisions should maybe spend a while in jail. But don't destroy tens of thousands of families and about $60 Billion worth of people's savings and pension funds to satisfy a desire for revenge.

Charles


User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1418 times:

Those who made the decisions should maybe spend a while in jail.

Yeah lets punish the person who analyzed the initial study data and found nothing wrong. As someone before said, these drugs go to mostly older people who already have medical problems, finding a correlation is probably not the easiest thing. Merck's study showed the drug to be safe, then the FDA showed the drug to be safe (all this took a few years), then the drug went to market. Later, studies found the drug to be unsafe and now the drug is gone.. Where is the criminal offense? I doubt anyone was grossly negligent, There was most certainly no bad intent in marketing the drug. The upper management is not shoving this money in giant canvas bags with dollar signs on them in the backs of their Ferraris and doing burnouts in the parking lot just for shits n giggles.

To punish people legally there would have to be a crime, I really don't see the crime. People make mistakes, and accidents happen, as long as nobody truly dropped the ball then no crime was committed.

From: West's Business Law, Text and Cases; 9th edition. p111
"To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove the following:
1. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
2. That the defendant breached that duty.
3. That the plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury.
4. That the defendant's breach caused the plaintiffs injury."

Gross Negligence, p 115
".. In suits involving gross negligence, which can be defined as an intentional failure to perform a manifest duty in reckless disregard of the consequences of such a failure for the life or property of another"

For some clarification:
"The law of torts defines and measures the duty of care by the reasonable person standard. In determining whether a duty of care has been breached, for example, the courts ask how a reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances."

Were there legally recognizable injuries? Yes, that's why they pulled the drug.
Did Merck's mistake cause people injury? Yes, that is why they pulled the drug.
Did Merck act unreasonably in the face of the new found information? No

Was Merck showing a reckless disregard? That's a big fat NO, they are being as responsible as they can be about this, they are not passing the buck, they are not denying responsibility, and if some ambulance chaser does take them to court over it the judge and jury will see how they have responded. They will have to pay something to the families of the people who died as a result but don't look for a huge award of punitive damages, there is nothing to punish here.


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1379 times:

It now appears that similar problems might exist with Bextra, an arthritis drug manufactured by Pfizer that works much the same as Vioxx. Nothing's been proven so far.



"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1369 times:

Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals out there.

That having been said, the published report has significant caveats. The results of the phase IV post-approval trials that were coming in around 1999-2000 were preliminary and while statistically troubling were not significant as the body of evidence garnered by 2004. Merck could have asked for a label change in 2000 with a warning, but it didn't. However, it really did not have to until the evidence was stronger. When that happened, Gilmartin in concert with the FDA ordered Vioxx pulled off the market.

And again, as far as big pharma goes, Merck is definitely one of the best. Its human genome database was offered to the public for free when other companies were busy charging for access to their limited gene sequence databases.

I seriously hope Merck survives this scandal, and more importantly its massive market and stock loss.


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1363 times:

Now lawyers are soliciting for business from people who claim to have suffered side effects from Vioxx. Absolutely pathetic.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineCaptoveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

"Absolutely pathetic."

That's lawyers for you, especially the bottom feeding variety that usually have their faces plastered all over the phone book, or daytime TV.

Welcome to the Nerf world.


User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1357 times:

That's lawyers for you, especially the bottom feeding variety that usually have their faces plastered all over the phone book, or daytime TV.

I hate to say this, but some of the ads appear right on this page.



"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1351 times:

I somehow think that Merck has played its cards very well and will come off as as sympathetic defendant.

User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16940 posts, RR: 48
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

"I somehow think that Merck has played its cards very well and will come off as as sympathetic defendant.
"

Doesn't matter. The lawyers smell money, and they will extract every last penny.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7011 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1340 times:

Alright, I'll admit I was a bit off in my assumption in what was going on, and we all know that when you assume you make an ass out of you and me. My first reaction was just a gut reaction, here they left a drug on the market that resulted in the deaths of 28,000 people. Maybe they shouldn't be "driven into the ground", but somebody should seriously be responsible for this and held accountable.


NO URLS in signature
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 16940 posts, RR: 48
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

". Maybe they shouldn't be "driven into the ground", but somebody should seriously be responsible for this and held accountable"

Unfortunately to the lawyers of the world (including John Edwards), they have no interest in holding anyone accountable, they just want to steal as much money as they can. What is more unfortunate is that a jury of Americans will hand it to them on a silver platter.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6661 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1328 times:

Given the over-regulation from the FDA, and the fact it takes billions of dollars and years of development, testing, and final approvals just to get new drugs to the market, it's even more impressive that Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug.

The certainly did the right thing and did not take the path of least resistance.



User currently offlineLtbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12880 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1323 times:

Merck shouldn't be driven into the ground. I live in New Jersey, the home of the company and one of the State's largest private employers. New Jersey is also the home to Johnson & Johnson, and the USA home of many non-USA drug companies, and many USA and Foreign companies have operations here. An article (I believe on the op-ed pages of the Wall St. Journal), made some interesting points about this situation with Vioxx. One was that it was being over prescribed. It should have been used only by those people who's digestive systems couldn't tolarate high use of over the counter anti-inflaminatory drugs. Instead because of heavy marketing pressures by Merck (over $400 MILLION over 4-5 years) upon doctors and potential patients and that medical insurance would cover the costs of presciptions, it became to be over prescribed. Had Merck not been so greedy, marketed Vioxx on a smaller and more appropiate scale, and if there were better checks by the health/drug insurance companies as to the prescribing of this drug by doctors, perhaps the tradegy could have been prevented. Now Merck is facing shame and huge damages. One commentator on this problem suggested that this could be the 3rd biggest product liability matter of all time.

User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5577 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1318 times:

Given the over-regulation from the FDA, and the fact it takes billions of dollars and years of development, testing, and final approvals just to get new drugs to the market, it's even more impressive that Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug.

All the Vioxx-related lawsuits that Merck is soon to face are going to make drug companies even more cautious about bringing new products to the market. Some useful, maybe lifesaving drugs may be delayed or even lost entirely as a result.



"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"She Should Be Thrown To The Sea"- Vatican Policy? posted Thu Mar 17 2005 01:20:09 by Derico
Chavs Should Not Be Allowed Into My Work (rant) posted Mon May 15 2006 02:21:57 by Cadet57
Who Thinks The British Monarchy Should Be Kicked O posted Mon Mar 28 2005 23:18:54 by Burberry753
The Media Catalyses Terrorism+should Be Censored. posted Fri Mar 4 2005 15:42:45 by Sevenair
Should The Veto Be Available In The UN posted Sat Dec 4 2004 11:43:58 by HAWK21M
Africa-How The Borders Should Be Drawn? posted Thu Sep 23 2004 02:55:39 by L.1011
Should Turkey Be A Member Of The EU? posted Sat Sep 11 2004 00:49:23 by Kl911
The 26th Amendment Should Be Repealed. posted Mon May 3 2004 21:55:25 by Lehpron
Art Modell Should Be In The Hall Of Fame posted Sun Jan 4 2004 20:33:09 by Alpha 1
Will There Ever Be A Serious Inquiry Into The War? posted Tue Sep 16 2003 16:29:19 by Alpha 1