(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)
After Merck's lawyers lost their first Vioxx lawsuit, things were starting to look up when they got a win or two under their belt. So the New England Journal of Medicine posting an Expression of Concern, essentially accusing Merck of scientific fraud by failing to include certain results, can't be good news.
From the NY Times:
The authors of the Vigor study included both Merck scientists and independent researchers. The study's results showed that patients taking Vioxx were four times as likely to suffer heart attacks as those taking naproxen, an older painkiller. In fact, 20 patients taking Vioxx suffered heart attacks, compared with four taking naproxen, a ratio of five to one.
Merck said at the time that the difference probably resulted from the fact that naproxen protected people from heart attacks, not because Vioxx caused them. Many independent scientists disputed the company's theory.
What twisted logic. "No, listen to me. Vioxx wasn't designed to protect people from heart attacks." Uh...ok.
From the Reuters Report:
"It's clearly not a happy PR event."
You can say that again.
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has a BUNCH of Vioxx related stuff.
Technorati Tags: Vioxx
(Posted by Patrick Sullivan Jr.)
After Merck's lawyers lost their first Vioxx lawsuit, things were starting to look up when they got a win or two under their belt. So the New England Journal of Medicine posting an Expression of Concern, essentially accusing Merck of scientific fraud by failing to include certain results, can't be good news.
From the NY Times:
What twisted logic. "No, listen to me. Vioxx wasn't designed to protect people from heart attacks." Uh...ok.
From the Reuters Report:
You can say that again.
Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, has a BUNCH of Vioxx related stuff.
Technorati Tags: Vioxx