About Contact Archives RSS Columns Photos

DID MERCK KNOW ALL ALONG?

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 10, 2004 06:47 AM

There seems to be an emerging consensus not only that Vioxx is a bad drug, but that Merck has known for years about Vioxx’s cardiovascular side effects.

If this were true, why would Merck voluntarily conduct a study that measured Vioxx’s effect on cardiovascular outcomes? Wouldn’t it have been smarter, if Merck knew about Vioxx’s problems all along, simply to sell the drug without conducting any new clinical trials?

This Medpundit post is a good antitode to emerging conventional wisdom. As Medpundit explains, the clinical trial now being touted as proof that Merck knew about Vioxx’s problems compared Vioxx to naproxen rather than placebo. Merck has said all along that it was not clear whether the elevated risk of cardiovascular problems among Vioxx users in that study was attributable to the dangers of Vioxx or to a cardioprotective effect of naproxen. Faced with a flood of lawsuits, Merck will argue (quite reasonably) that the issue was not settled conclusively until new placebo-controlled trial results came in a few weeks ago.

Many thoughtful posts on the Vioxx recall at Derek Lowe’s site and RangelMD. An excerpt from one of Lowe’s posts:

I see that some of the Merck/Vioxx coverage has been along the lines of “Company Finally Heeds Warnings of Unsafe Drug.” Boy, the tort attorneys have to love that sort of thing. It’s true that Merck had some signs that Vioxx could have cardiovascular problems, but there are a lot of drugs, unfortunately, that show rumblings of this sort. Some of them turn out to be false alarms, and some of them turn out to be real. This one turned out to be real with fangs.

If we immediately pulled every drug that showed any indication of trouble, it’s for sure that no patients would come to harm. But we wouldn’t have very many drugs, either. It’s possible that Merck could have moved more aggressively to see if Vioxx had these problems or not - but if companies immediately ran fully-powered studies to address every red light that comes on, we’d have even more enormous costs to make up than we do already. Nothing’s free.

Posted in: Health care

Add your opinion

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. Wizbang

Trackback URL

You must be logged in to post a comment.

In Santa Cruz, not all smoke is equal

September 9, 2008 10:57 AM by Michelle Malkin

72 Comments | 0 Trackbacks

Dude.

More nosy doctors who don’t like guns

July 8, 2008 05:44 PM by Michelle Malkin

77 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Bad medicine.

Sick: U.S. liver transplants for Japanese gang members

May 30, 2008 08:22 AM by Michelle Malkin

63 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

A health care crime.

It depends on the meaning of “working poor”

March 31, 2008 09:00 PM by Michelle Malkin

24 Comments | 4 Trackbacks

Sinking S-CHIP.

In defense of parents with informed vaccine skepticism

March 24, 2008 09:49 PM by Michelle Malkin

68 Comments | 5 Trackbacks

Shot in the arm.

The Trojan Horse S-CHIP Republicans

January 23, 2008 08:15 PM by Michelle Malkin

38 Comments | 1 Trackback

The Hillary health care papers

January 18, 2008 01:28 PM by Michelle Malkin

40 Comments | 9 Trackbacks

“…to expose lifestyles…”

Nanny Bloomberg: Cheez-Its for me, but not for thee

January 11, 2008 10:24 AM by Michelle Malkin

62 Comments | 4 Trackbacks

Trans-fat hypocrisy.

How to lose weight like an economist

January 7, 2008 12:30 PM by Michelle Malkin

21 Comments | 0 Trackbacks


Categories: Health care


Confederate Yankee

» The Tasergate Wet Fart

JustOneMinute

» Reading Incomprehension

JustOneMinute

» Paulson Speaks!