It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush's FDA green lights relaunch of Vioxx

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Dovetailing nicely with the corporate payoff of reduced class action awards & the crippling of a citizens right to a fair award due to corporate negligence, the US Food & Drug Administration has allowed Merck, the makers of Vioxx, to be sold again.
Astonishingly, Vioxx just went through the largest drug recall in world history, due to it causing strokes & heart attacks in patients.
The important part, of course, is that Merck's shares jumped 13 per cent on the news.

Look at the numbers:

- 500,000 patients prescribed Vioxx since 1999
- 100,000 strokes, heart attacks & deaths since 1999
( grade school math says that's 20% or 1 in 5 ........Even playing Russian Roullette with a .38 revolver gives you better odds at 1 in 6!!!!
)

Here's what our FDA said: "The FDA said the benefits of Vioxx outweighed its link to heart attacks and strokes and that it should stay on the market but with a label warning and a black box."

It is yet uncorroborated that Merck executives issued these cuff links to anyone else besides Karl Rove in the administration.






posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Wow,

This extends beyond religion? Who would have known. Bout time, you lied. When you provide incorrect information, you are lying. Try "looking into" stuff before you tell people about it, or you will look foolish like you do now. I understand your hatred of Bush makes you look for ways to stretch the truth, but come on now, using numbers that people can easily check is down right stupid. I bet you were hoping someone like me didn't come along and burst your bubble.

You stated, and I quote: "- 500,000 patients prescribed Vioxx since 1999
- 100,000 strokes, heart attacks & deaths since 1999
( grade school math says that's 20% or 1 in 5 ........Even playing Russian Roullette with a .38 revolver gives you better odds at 1 in 6!!!!
)"

You are a liar, just to reiterate. I took it upon myself to do a quick check on your number, because it did seam a bit ridiculous. Linked below are a few of approximately 50 websites I looked at providing the exact same information (as each other, not you by the way). And I trust every one of these. There is a lawyers office trying to make this look as bad as possible so they can make money, along with several reputable news sources. Oh, and just so you know, there is more then just the ones I looked at out there. I just stopped after I was completly sure of your lie.

Every single source of information I looked at cited 84 million users of Vioxx since 1999. 84 million is a lot more than your lie of 500,000. Boy do I love liberal propoganda efforts when they are as ridiculous as yours. The good thing is that you werent too far off as to your 100,00 victims number. Most sites vary a bit with this, but the most aggressive counts put it at 150,000.

A death is a death however, a stroke is a stroke, and a heart attack is a heart attack. Similarly, A LIE IS A LIE. You do a poor job at lying, I suggest you stop.

Your 20% problem rate is far beyond logic. The number is closer too 0.1%. I am not taking away from those victims. I am just making sure that everyone in here starts to question everything "Bout Time" has to say.


www.medlawlegalteam.com...

www.cbsnews.com...

www.detnews.com...

www.usatoday.com...

www.msnbc.msn.com...



[edit on 2/22/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
He is not lieing if he belives what he says is true. He is simply missinformed.

Seapeople, it is not helpfull to personally attack, we are all trying to find the truth. If you know better than Bout Time then present your case, which I think you have, but please leave the name calling on the playground. We are all adults here.

The fact is that the drug has been proven to increase the risk of death, certianly not to the level Bout time has posted. Anyone who is going to take the drug should understand the risks. That info should be made available, and any user should take it upon themselves to get informed.

Please Bout time check your numbers, we are trying to Deny Ignorance, not spread it.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I was on Vioxx...went to the hospital twice with cheat pains, unable to breath in as many years....I am still having pains, though my stress test came out ok.....if it persists, I have to have a heart cath done to check further.....no problems before Vioxx....



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
I was on Vioxx...went to the hospital twice with cheat pains, unable to breath in as many years....I am still having pains, though my stress test came out ok.....if it persists, I have to have a heart cath done to check further.....no problems before Vioxx....


Uh...........have you thought about any legal action??? Take advantage while you can.

Peace



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
What you mean while you can? Didn't Bush already pass the "Screw you" bill into law?

Anyways, my dad was on it, perfect health for 46 years, but then he is on Vioxx, and well, 3 hospital bills for heart related problems later.....



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I'm not much of a "suing" kind of person......I have never really believed in it...if they find I have some type of permanent damage and they prove it is from Vioxx, maybe....



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
He is not lieing if he belives what he says is true. He is simply missinformed.

Seapeople, it is not helpfull to personally attack, we are all trying to find the truth. If you know better than Bout Time then present your case, which I think you have, but please leave the name calling on the playground. We are all adults here.

The fact is that the drug has been proven to increase the risk of death, certianly not to the level Bout time has posted. Anyone who is going to take the drug should understand the risks. That info should be made available, and any user should take it upon themselves to get informed.

Please Bout time check your numbers, we are trying to Deny Ignorance, not spread it.

[edit on 22-2-2005 by Halfofone]


You know as well as I do what was going on in that post. A simple internet search generates THOUSANDS of informational links right off the bat showing the correct information.

The intent of this thread was not the truth. It was to make someone look bad. As an added touch, he distorted intentionally the information he provided.

Every single day I come to this website and say the same thing over and over. I tell you, that if you don't question everything, that you open yourself up for being led astray. If I didn't question the junk information provided to us in this thread, I would have an entirely different opinion of this situation. It is your DUTY to make sure what you tell others is correct. It is your fault, and you are liable, if your misinform people.

As I said earlier, it is clear to everyone what the intent of this post was. The intent makes for a strong motive to intentionally distort. Intentional distortion is a lie.

And some food for thought, I searched, and couldn't find ONE source of information that matched his. Not one. If he was misinformed, then he was misinformed by an entity. So, if he cannot supply this entity, then that means he fabricated the information.

Save face Bout, provide me one single source for your information, and I will admit I am wrong.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I don't think Bout Time was lying - the numbers change depending on your sources. Whatever the numbers, there's no doubt Vioxx and all the other COX-2 inhibitors are dangerous.


Each one of these links leads to references:



USA, Inc: Executive Clemency for Executive Killers

Vioxx Back Despite Dangers



U.S. Still Silencing Scientists

Bush Pushes to Limit Class-Action Suits

FDA to Create Drug Safety Oversight Board

Merck and Vioxx: A Twisted Tale of Cover-ups, Pork and Profits



.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople


As I said earlier, it is clear to everyone what the intent of this post was.





Well, perhaps I am unintelligent moron than, I have no idea what you think the post was supposed to be about other than what it was....even so.....what's wrong with you lately!? It's seems that every post I see with you in it as of late is name calling and nasty, your past post weren't so mean! .What's up with you!?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
Wow,

This extends beyond religion? Who would have known. Bout time, you lied. When you provide incorrect information, you are lying. Try "looking into" stuff before you tell people about it, or you will look foolish like you do now. I understand your hatred of Bush makes you look for ways to stretch the truth, but come on now, using numbers that people can easily check is down right stupid. I bet you were hoping someone like me didn't come along and burst your bubble.

You stated, and I quote: "- 500,000 patients prescribed Vioxx since 1999
- 100,000 strokes, heart attacks & deaths since 1999
( grade school math says that's 20% or 1 in 5 ........Even playing Russian Roullette with a .38 revolver gives you better odds at 1 in 6!!!!
)"

You are a liar, just to reiterate. I took it upon myself to do a quick check on your number, because it did seam a bit ridiculous.


I'm glad you took the time to look something up, yet sad that you failed to read the article I linked (where I got the numbers):

Vioxx is a drug which was prescribed to patients with arthritis to help alleviate the pain associated with the disease. It was first approved in Australia on June 30, 1999, and in the year leading up to the drug's recall, there were close to 3.2 million prescriptions issued, to almost 500,000 people. Vioxx had worldwide sales of $US2.5 billion ($A3.2 billion) in 2003.

Vioxx has been linked to 100,000 strokes, heart attacks and deaths around the world since its release in 1999.

***********************

About 84 million people worldwide have taken Vioxx and Merck had expected annual sales of the drug to reach $US3.5 billion before its forced withdrawal.


As one of your personalities is aware, since you're evidently on prescription drugs for schizophrenia because I do remember you being a Bush syncophant but not this bad, there is a difference from having a drug therapy established by your physcian, and receiving one time or short cycle dosage.
On the contested numbers, it was either misread by me on one word (Australia), thus giving my "roulette" analogy no gumption, or talking about worldwide in that year.
That being said, I fail to see why the flames were set burning instead of simply giving your input to highlight what I missed?
The FDA's endorsement for major contributor Merck is lost on you, I suppose?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
It is your DUTY to make sure what you tell others is correct. It is your fault, and you are liable, if your misinform people.


true but you could have gone and proved your side without name calling.



here is his miss-info;



Vioxx was first approved in Australia on June 30, 1999. In the year leading up to the drug's recall, there were almost 3.2 million prescriptions for Vioxx issued, with almost 500,000 people taking Vioxx in Australia at the time.

This so called "miracle pain reliever" has been linked to 100,000 strokes, heart attacks and deaths around the world since its release in 1999.

source

He got 500,000 from Ausi numbers.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Ladyv,

First off, I am sorry to hear about your issues with vioxx. I want you to know upfront, that I am not trying to take away from the seriousness of that situation.

In this post, the intent, which you say you missed, was clear. If this post was simply about Vioxx, then he wouldn't have dragged my president into the situation. It is not just about vioxx. It is clear to anyone who reads this, that he is intentionally trying to persuade people into believeing the administration lies at fault for a serious problem. To be honest, it may, I do not know. However, a hatred for Geoge Bush is no reason to intentionally distort information. He provided information, to achieve shock value. His russian roulette analogy would be very good in my opinion, if his info was not falsified.


This post of his was coupled with another politically related post regarding propoganda. Propoganda is intentionally distorted information intended to shift political opinion. Propoganda was exactly what we had in this thread, and is exactly what he criticized in his other thread. A little hypocritical?

In any case, anyone thinking with a clear head reading this would have immediately realized the huge significance of the numbers he gave us. Including himself. I was shocked, and at that, I needed to make surew he was correct. I searched, and instantly found THOUSANDS of credible documents which showed why that number he gave seemed so high. It was. I then intentionally searched for anyone or anything to provide the information he gave. I was unsuccessful, and I looked. I have no idea where that info came from. But he provided it to us as fact. He obviously never even attempted to check it out, either that or he lied.

Judging by his intents, I pick the latter. It is part of an increasing amount of intentional lies I am seeing provided on this site as fact. With an apparent uncontested receipt. I am tired of it, and I am trying to make it clear that it is going on. If I make a big enough deal about it, maybe it will make an impact.

For the first time, I am angry at the stupidity of some people due to this problem. As a result, I have been much nastier admittedly in my posts. Hopefully this is only a phase. Yes, I used to be way nicer in my posts. This problem has increased dramatically since then.

I am using the word liar a lot. And I am stating it outright to those who are doing it. Though not to many people are openly siding with me on anything, nor have they ever, I know they see what I am saying. I also know that most would agree.

It is your duty to make sure to the best of your ability that the information you provide is accurate. Mistakes are one thing. Intentional deciept is another.

My apolgies to you ladyv.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
If this post was simply about Vioxx, then he wouldn't have dragged my president into the situation. It is not just about vioxx. It is clear to anyone who reads this, that he is intentionally trying to persuade people into believeing the administration lies at fault for a serious problem. To be honest, it may, I do not know.



True Seapeople, you don't know. You need to do some quick catch-up. Please, read this post, and follow the links. Then you will have a better idea of what's really going on.


Merck and Vioxx: A Twisted Tale of Cover-ups, Pork and Profits



.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
If this post was simply about Vioxx, then he wouldn't have dragged my president into the situation. It is not just about vioxx. It is clear to anyone who reads this, that he is intentionally trying to persuade people into believeing the administration lies at fault for a serious problem. To be honest, it may, I do not know. However, a hatred for Geoge Bush is no reason to intentionally distort information.


"Dragged my president...." THAT really says it all, doesn't it? I can sympathize, to a degree, about dealing with people whom you deem delusional, and how it incites anger.

"It is clear to anyone who reads this, that he is intentionally trying to persuade people into believeing the administration lies at fault for a serious problem." - We are talking about the same FDA which went to bat for Merck et al in the discrediting about the efficacy & quality of Candaian import drugs. Merck's price per share had everything to do with the decision. I'm sorry I gave you credit in being able to see that.....I'll be more obvious next time.

"a hatred for Geoge Bush is no reason to intentionally distort information. "

A blind love for George Bush is no reason to intentionally distort & disavow the obvious.

As for Vioxx, I am at 100% for family members being prescribed it & then having heart attack symptoms.....so for me at first glance, 20% seemed low.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
This isn't about a cover up sofi. I admitted I do not know about that. This is about an intentional lie. A lie you don't seem to care about. It is people like you that allow these lies to go on. Maybe you should some catch up on your own. You can't learn a whole truth when you are continuously fed with lies. Isn't that the very thing you are accusing the bush administration of doing? But its ok for you? I hope you truly don't feel this way.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I don't care whether it seemed low to you or not. You obviously claim to have experience with this situation. So you definitely should be informed. It even makes your lie worse now that you stated that.

Your next course of action would be to admit you were wrong in providing that information. And telling us all you will strive to resist your urge to lie. By the way, I used the term my president, yes. If you live in the us buddy, he is your president to. Whether you like it or not. It is no excuse to lie.

You owe us all an explanation. Also, I will admit I am wrong like I said, if you provide us all with your source for the original numbers. Even though, theoretically, you would still be at fault for not checking your statements out.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeapeopleYou owe us all an explanation. Also, I will admit I am wrong like I said, if you provide us all with your source for the original numbers. Even though, theoretically, you would still be at fault for not checking your statements out.


He gave one, and so did I!!!!
read the new posts before you continue YOUR lies!



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
No I don't like it; that's news to you? Bush is the US president, but the way you say it imparts so much more, doesn't it? How am I telling a lie about my family having problems with the drug? You want a link on that too, SeaMonkey?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Now this is simply amazing.


Someone has an agenda.
Someone intentionally distorts information to fit his agenda.

I come along, and call his bluff. I provide the correct information.

Yet you call me a liar? It must be fun having your head implanted in a certain cavity of your body. I never lied. The issue I pointed out is not the occurances with Vioxx. It was the intentional and severe distortion of easily accessable information.

Bout,

I never once called you a liar about your family situation. I stated that being in that situation, you would be expected to be more informed. Even at that, you still provided incorrect information. Yet you keep avoiding that.

Provide a source for your inforamation. Otherwise, you intentionally lied.

For everyone out there just reading the end of this, I want to point out that I have made it clear that my responses to this thread have nothing to do with a conspiracy, vioxx, or bouts family life. I read his post, found a lie, and called him on that. I provided correct information where there was deceptive information. I provided sources, not that you cant find thousands of your own easily. A lie, is a lie, is a lie. It doesn't matter whether or not GWB had some sort of involvement in some stock trading or money making scandel. This is an attack at severly distorting the number of people who were harmed from vioxx vrs the number of those who took it.

By the way, I thought for a second, and realized that I never accused you of being a liar for that claim regarding your family. I take that back. Since you already are a proven liar, I think it would be safe to not trust anything you say. You are too politically motivated to lie.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join