VIOXX Help

A recent study shows that doctors overprescribed Vioxx; oversaturation of advertising may be the culprit


First Vioxx, Now Thimerosal: When it Comes to Safety, Merck Keeps ...
Yahoo News (press release) - USA
LOS ANGELES, Feb. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- A Los Angeles Times article today reports that Merck, a leading manufacturer of prescription ...
See all stories on this topic

Merck Canceled an Early Study of Vioxx
Lakeland Ledger - Lakeland,FL,USA
Merck & Company executives have long insisted that they never pursued a clinical trial to directly study the heart risks of the pain drug Vioxx because other ...
See all stories on this topic

Merck Cancelled An Early Study Of Vioxx
TheDay (subscription) - New London,CT,USA
... executives have long insisted that they never pursued a clinical trial to directly study the heart risks of the pain drug Vioxx because other tests they were ...
See all stories on this topic

MedicineNet Survey Shows Former Vioxx Users Getting Less Pain ...
Emediawire (press release) - Ferndale,WA,USA
MedicineNet survey shows that former users of Vioxx report negative consequences of the drug's withdrawal from the market including less pain relief, side ...


Walgreen's and Merck blamed for Vioxx customers' heart ailments
Madison County Record - Edwardsville,IL,USA
... Circuit Court Feb. 4, claiming their use of the arthritis pain reliever Vioxx caused them to suffer heart damage. Merck pulled the ...
See all stories on this topic

Vioxx Killed My Husband [It's Bush's Fault]
Useless-Knowledge.com - USA
... While he lay next to me, Peter Jennings was talking about Merck Pharmaceuticals and the drug vioxx. Vioxx killed my husband just ...


Drugmaker Expands Vioxx Refund Program
INDYchannel.com - Indianapolis,IN,USA
INDIANAPOLIS -- A drugmaker has expanded its refund program for recalled painkiller Vioxx, saying even people who discarded the pills can now qualify. ...

Pfizer rises after calling Celebrex safe
MarketWatch - USA
... on Monday, following news that the company has told US regulatory officials that all of its in-house clinical studies show its pain reliever Celebrex is safe. ...
See all stories on this topic

Merck records show early concerns about Vioxx
MSNBC - USA
... show that a committee monitoring the safety of arthritis drug Vioxx in a clinical trial had early data suggesting users could be at increased risk of heart ...
See all stories on this topic

More Bad News For Merck Over Vioxx Article?
Health Talk - Toronto,Ontario,Canada
An article published in the Wall Street Journal today questions when Merck knew their pain drug Vioxx caused patients to experience an increase in the risk of ...
See all stories on this topic

Pfizer Review Shows No Cardiovascular Risk in Celebrex
TechNewsWorld - Sherman Oaks,CA,USA
By Theresa Agovino. Pfizer said Celebrex showed no increased overall risk of cardiovascular problems in a massive analysis of 41 completed studies. ...


Celebrex Fight
Chemical & Engineering News - USA
Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen confronted Pfizer last week over a 1999 study of the drug firm's COX-2 inhibitor Celebrex (celecoxib), claiming that the ...



A recent study shows that doctors overprescribed Vioxx ...
News Target - Taichung,Taiwan
A recent study examined the tendencies of doctors to prescribe Vioxx, a drug that Merck recalled after learning that it increased the risk of heart attack, and ...
See all stories on this topic

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Gift for Drug Makers: "




OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Gift for Drug Makers
By BOB HERBERT

Published: January 14, 2005


ioxx, Celebrex, Prozac. ...

With all the problems and the bad publicity that drug companies have been facing recently, you might think that this would not be a good time for the Bush administration to toss yet another bonanza their way.

But the administration is like an ardent lover in its zeal to shower the rich and powerful with every imaginable benefit. So tucked like a gleaming diamond in proposed legislation to curb malpractice lawsuits is a provision that would give an unconscionable degree of protection to firms responsible for drugs or medical devices that turn out to be harmful.

The provision would go beyond caps on certain damages. It would actually prohibit punitive damages in cases in which the drug or medical device had received Food and Drug Administration approval. We know the F.D.A. has failed time and again to ensure that unsafe drugs are kept off the market. To provide blanket legal protection against punitive damages in such cases is both unwarranted and dangerous.

We learned just last month that Celebrex, the phenomenally popular painkiller from Pfizer, more than tripled the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death among those taking high doses in a national trial. Those findings, as noted in an article in The Times, "raised new questions about how well federal drug regulators protect the public and worsened drug makers' already dismal image."

Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who held hearings on recent F.D.A. actions, said, "At this point, no one can say with confidence whether the worst drug safety problems are behind us or ahead of us."

The Celebrex disclosure came on the heels of a decision by Merck to withdraw its arthritis drug Vioxx from the market after a study showed a link between long-term use of the drug and an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Two weeks ago, an article in The British Medical Journal suggested that Eli Lilly & Company had long concealed evidence that the antidepressant Prozac could cause violent and suicidal behavior. The company denies the accusation, which the journal forwarded to the F.D.A.

If the malpractice legislation so relentlessly touted by President Bush became law, Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly would be immunized against even the possibility of punitive damages arising from any harm to patients that resulted from use of these drugs - as long as the companies followed F.D.A. rules. All three drugs were approved by the F.D.A.

The whole idea behind punitive damages is to severely punish the most egregious offenders. Huge punitive damage awards are supposed to serve as a deterrent to extremely bad behavior.

"It's an important system to have in place," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "The F.D.A. is certainly not doing its job. The legal system is a very important backup. It's really the last line of defense to ensure that the marketplace only has safe products."

If Mr. Bush has his way, that line of defense will be substantially weakened. With the possibility of punitive damages eliminated, drug companies will be even less vigilant than they are now about problems with products that pose a serious - even fatal - threat to patients.

The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, was blunt on the matter. He said, "Congress should not be giving a free pass to big drug companies at a time when millions of Americans may have had their health put at risk by pharmaceutical giants."

The drug companies have an incredible racket going, as Marcia Angell, the former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, documents in her book "The Truth About the Drug Companies."

"Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit," she wrote, "this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)"

Among those co-opted is the president himself. Nothing's too good for the drug companies. If ordinary Americans got the same sweet treatment from this administration as the great pharmaceutical houses, we'd all be in a much better place.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Gift for Drug Makers: "




OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Gift for Drug Makers
By BOB HERBERT

Published: January 14, 2005



ioxx, Celebrex, Prozac. ...

With all the problems and the bad publicity that drug companies have been facing recently, you might think that this would not be a good time for the Bush administration to toss yet another bonanza their way.

But the administration is like an ardent lover in its zeal to shower the rich and powerful with every imaginable benefit. So tucked like a gleaming diamond in proposed legislation to curb malpractice lawsuits is a provision that would give an unconscionable degree of protection to firms responsible for drugs or medical devices that turn out to be harmful.

The provision would go beyond caps on certain damages. It would actually prohibit punitive damages in cases in which the drug or medical device had received Food and Drug Administration approval. We know the F.D.A. has failed time and again to ensure that unsafe drugs are kept off the market. To provide blanket legal protection against punitive damages in such cases is both unwarranted and dangerous.

We learned just last month that Celebrex, the phenomenally popular painkiller from Pfizer, more than tripled the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death among those taking high doses in a national trial. Those findings, as noted in an article in The Times, "raised new questions about how well federal drug regulators protect the public and worsened drug makers' already dismal image."

Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who held hearings on recent F.D.A. actions, said, "At this point, no one can say with confidence whether the worst drug safety problems are behind us or ahead of us."

The Celebrex disclosure came on the heels of a decision by Merck to withdraw its arthritis drug Vioxx from the market after a study showed a link between long-term use of the drug and an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Two weeks ago, an article in The British Medical Journal suggested that Eli Lilly & Company had long concealed evidence that the antidepressant Prozac could cause violent and suicidal behavior. The company denies the accusation, which the journal forwarded to the F.D.A.

If the malpractice legislation so relentlessly touted by President Bush became law, Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly would be immunized against even the possibility of punitive damages arising from any harm to patients that resulted from use of these drugs - as long as the companies followed F.D.A. rules. All three drugs were approved by the F.D.A.

The whole idea behind punitive damages is to severely punish the most egregious offenders. Huge punitive damage awards are supposed to serve as a deterrent to extremely bad behavior.

"It's an important system to have in place," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "The F.D.A. is certainly not doing its job. The legal system is a very important backup. It's really the last line of defense to ensure that the marketplace only has safe products."

If Mr. Bush has his way, that line of defense will be substantially weakened. With the possibility of punitive damages eliminated, drug companies will be even less vigilant than they are now about problems with products that pose a serious - even fatal - threat to patients.

The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, was blunt on the matter. He said, "Congress should not be giving a free pass to big drug companies at a time when millions of Americans may have had their health put at risk by pharmaceutical giants."

The drug companies have an incredible racket going, as Marcia Angell, the former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, documents in her book "The Truth About the Drug Companies."

"Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit," she wrote, "this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)"

Among those co-opted is the president himself. Nothing's too good for the drug companies. If ordinary Americans got the same sweet treatment from this administration as the great pharmaceutical houses, we'd all be in a much better place.

The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Gift for Drug Makers: "




OP-ED COLUMNIST
A Gift for Drug Makers
By BOB HERBERT

Published: January 14, 2005



ioxx, Celebrex, Prozac. ...

With all the problems and the bad publicity that drug companies have been facing recently, you might think that this would not be a good time for the Bush administration to toss yet another bonanza their way.

But the administration is like an ardent lover in its zeal to shower the rich and powerful with every imaginable benefit. So tucked like a gleaming diamond in proposed legislation to curb malpractice lawsuits is a provision that would give an unconscionable degree of protection to firms responsible for drugs or medical devices that turn out to be harmful.

The provision would go beyond caps on certain damages. It would actually prohibit punitive damages in cases in which the drug or medical device had received Food and Drug Administration approval. We know the F.D.A. has failed time and again to ensure that unsafe drugs are kept off the market. To provide blanket legal protection against punitive damages in such cases is both unwarranted and dangerous.

We learned just last month that Celebrex, the phenomenally popular painkiller from Pfizer, more than tripled the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death among those taking high doses in a national trial. Those findings, as noted in an article in The Times, "raised new questions about how well federal drug regulators protect the public and worsened drug makers' already dismal image."

Senator Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who held hearings on recent F.D.A. actions, said, "At this point, no one can say with confidence whether the worst drug safety problems are behind us or ahead of us."

The Celebrex disclosure came on the heels of a decision by Merck to withdraw its arthritis drug Vioxx from the market after a study showed a link between long-term use of the drug and an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Two weeks ago, an article in The British Medical Journal suggested that Eli Lilly & Company had long concealed evidence that the antidepressant Prozac could cause violent and suicidal behavior. The company denies the accusation, which the journal forwarded to the F.D.A.

If the malpractice legislation so relentlessly touted by President Bush became law, Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly would be immunized against even the possibility of punitive damages arising from any harm to patients that resulted from use of these drugs - as long as the companies followed F.D.A. rules. All three drugs were approved by the F.D.A.

The whole idea behind punitive damages is to severely punish the most egregious offenders. Huge punitive damage awards are supposed to serve as a deterrent to extremely bad behavior.

"It's an important system to have in place," said Joanne Doroshow, executive director of the Center for Justice and Democracy, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. "The F.D.A. is certainly not doing its job. The legal system is a very important backup. It's really the last line of defense to ensure that the marketplace only has safe products."

If Mr. Bush has his way, that line of defense will be substantially weakened. With the possibility of punitive damages eliminated, drug companies will be even less vigilant than they are now about problems with products that pose a serious - even fatal - threat to patients.

The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid of Nevada, was blunt on the matter. He said, "Congress should not be giving a free pass to big drug companies at a time when millions of Americans may have had their health put at risk by pharmaceutical giants."

The drug companies have an incredible racket going, as Marcia Angell, the former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, documents in her book "The Truth About the Drug Companies."

"Now primarily a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit," she wrote, "this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the U.S. Congress, the Food and Drug Administration, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself. (Most of its marketing efforts are focused on influencing doctors, since they must write the prescriptions.)"

Among those co-opted is the president himself. Nothing's too good for the drug companies. If ordinary Americans got the same sweet treatment from this administration as the great pharmaceutical houses, we'd all be in a much better place.

C&EN: LATEST NEWS - Investigating Vioxx Toxicity: "

Oxidation to a maleic anhydride derivative may be a factor in the long-term toxicity of rofecoxib (Vioxx), a new report suggests. This previously unknown reactivity is not shared by other cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, such as celecoxib (Celebrex), valdecoxib (Bextra), and lumiracoxib (Prexige). The hypothesis, if proven true, runs counter to the assumption that other COX-2 inhibitors pose the same risk to humans as Vioxx.

Vioxx was withdrawn from the market last September by its manufacturer, Merck, after a clinical trial indicated that it poses an increased risk of cardiovascular events.

Vioxx is a weak acid, and the anion formed when it releases its acidic proton is highly reactive toward atmospheric oxygen, according to laboratory studies by Harvard University chemists Leleti Rajender Reddy and E. J. Corey. The products are principally a maleic anhydride and lesser amounts of a -hydroxybutenolide [Tetrahedron Lett., published online Dec. 25, 2004, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tetlet.2004.12.055]."

The New York Times > Business > Questions Are Seen on Merck's Stance on Pain Drug's Use

Google Search:

The New York Times > National > Medical Journal Calls for a New Drug Watchdog

Google Search:

Google Search: