It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Vioxx - They Knew That It Was Harmful, But Kept It On The Market For FOUR YEARS Anyway!

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:30 AM
"Topol, a well-known cardiovascular researcher, also reviewed an unpublished clinical trial of Vioxx by Merck in 1998 that showed patients who took the drug were six times more likely to have serious cardiovascular events -- including heart attacks and strokes -- than patients who took another arthritis drug or placebo. "

"In March 2000, results from a clinical trial known as the "Approve" study showed Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attack and strokes in patients who had taken it for over 18 months to prevent recurrence of colon polyps. Merck recalled the drug on Sept. 30 based on data from the trial."

"About 105 million U.S. prescriptions were written for Vioxx from May 1999 through August 2004, and about 20 million people have used the drug since its 1999 launch, Merck said."

How many other drugs are on the market that they know could have profound adverse affects on our health, but we're being given them without knowing the full risks?
Is this fair to the consumer?
As soon as they suspect ill effects associated with a drug wouldn't it be fair to give the buyer of this perscription a write out of the suspected side effects, there-by at least giving them fair warning?
It's horrible that we have been left in the dark for so long.

Mod Edit: Shrunk the long link

[edit on 11/15/04 by FredT]

[edit on 15-11-2004 by kastinyque]

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 01:48 AM
I am a very P.O'd person at this point , with the Merck Company for hiding this information from the patients that had been prescribed the drug "Vioxx",............... WHY, because I happen to be a patient that was put on this drug, and at a high doseage,.... 50mg. . I still have the drug and the box it came in, I did not like the way it made me feel when I first started on it,.... so I stopped and I'm sure glad I did, considering I have problems with my blood-pressure to where my doctor put me on one (1) buffered asprin a day,........... who knows what may have happened to me if I had kept on taking the Vioxx,............. I could have ended-up like the man in Texas that is only 32 yrs old and now in a nursing home.

I hope the company gets the pants sued-off of them.

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:21 PM
You can't logically expect the FDA to bite the hand that feeds them can you?

Please people if you don't pay the piper, you don't choose the tune.

Drug companies pay the bills. Drug companies get FDA rulings they want.

It's the American Capitalistic system at work.


posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:41 PM
Bush's FDA sent Merck a nasty letter once to stop their false advertising about not killing people.

They didn't do anything, but I understand the tone was quite harsh.

After all, it's not like they exposed a nipple on TV or anything.
Then the FCC would have taken a pound of flesh.

I only hope Bush can save Merck from the "greedy trial lawyers."

Bush. Worst Republican ever.

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 09:39 AM
Ohmigod! Something was sold even though it was harmful? That would NEVER happen *cough* cigarettes *cough* saturated fats in foods *cough* accutane and birth defects *cough* ephedera. I can't believe Vioxx was even allowed on the market!!

Seriously though - this isn't a new things, and as medical treatments and testing techniques advance, there are sure to be many products just like Vioxx identified and pulled off the market.

One interesting bit - I work in a place where I routinely ask people what medications they take and why. Those who were on Vioxx unanamously say that they would take the risks for the relief the drug provided. These are people with general pain, some going for joint replacement surgery, osteo-arthritis folks, etc. I have yet to ask someone who has recently quit Vioxx NOT comment about it and tell me they miss it and how great it was for their pain.

Some questions that I have on this whole mess:

If Vioxx doubles the risk of heart attack and stroke, could those risks be reduced when someone not in pain increases physical activity? We're all perfectly willing to accept risk of heart disease and stroke with the food we eat and level of activity we maintain - why should we all freak out over a pill if it has benefit in other ways? Let's all sit on our bums all day and eat fries, then sue the makers of Vioxx for putting us at risk.

Is there a medication that can counteract the risk causing element in Vioxx? Find that, and fight pain and make more money at the same time. Woo!

What exactly is the mechanism that makes Vioxx so risky?

Does dosage have any effect? Can low dose Vioxx be combined with another drug like Celebrex to effectively fight pain, but reduce risk?

Is Vioxx overperscribed or misperscribed for people that dont need it?

Does the rate of risk increase in only certain individuals with a specific condition causing them pain in need of Vioxx? Ex: might people with arthritis pain be more at risk than those with other types of pain?

Anyhow - so much the public doesn't know about the why's and hows. It would be nice to know more about whats really going on before having a knee-jerk reaction and being so quick to ban everything. Those that don't take Vioxx are outraged. Seems to be that those who did take it are a lot less angry, and miss their miracle drug.

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 01:02 PM

Those that don't take Vioxx are outraged. Seems to be that those who did take it are a lot less angry, and miss their miracle drug.

Some of those who 'miss their miracle drug' may no longer be able to speak for themselves....

My husband was put on Vioxx shortly after it came out....( pinched nerve, arthritic lumbar area, etc ). There was some mention shortly there after about the side effects of heart problems, and he quit taking it hadn't been much of a 'miracle' drug in his case anyway, and he didn't miss it.

The FDA has a long history of 'selling' a drug to doctors and to the public, in spite of knowing about adverse effects. I did reseach for a term paper on Thalidomide--it caused terrible birth defects, but was given to expectant women, as a 'miracle drug' for morning sickness!!! The maker fought it's removal from the market tooth and nail, pushing ob doctors to hand out free samples of it, even while the controversy and congressional hearings were on going. ( Years of research had been done in the UK, finding high rates of deformities in animal that were given the drug, but the drug co. tried to keep that quiet.)

When I hear the FDA and drug manufacturers "have our best interests at heart"---I have trouble believing it!!

posted on Nov, 16 2004 @ 02:54 PM
Historically, 10 percent of the drugs approved by the FDA have either been subsequently banned, or have had warnings associated with their use. I don't trust drug companies at all. I am trying to find ways of getting my step-father away from inhalers for his asthma for the past few months now.


Originally posted by kastinyque
How many other drugs are on the market that they know could have profound adverse affects on our health, but we're being given them without knowing the full risks?
[edit on 15-11-2004 by kastinyque]

posted on Nov, 20 2007 @ 10:42 AM
Alright, it's always slam the FDA day over here. Merck, on the line? Here's a list of known carcinogens aka TOXIC poison you put in your pharms. Vioxx? One of many, scroll down the page about halfway for Merck products:

Anything w/ this substance is 'potentially' toxic and a known kidney/liver damager: Triethanolamine, in many Merck products, including vaccines.

[edit on 20-11-2007 by anhinga]

new topics

top topics


log in