The case by itself looks like standard Drug company withholding key information. What's interesting, or worrying, is that it's by the makers of Vioxx. For those who don't know, Merck withheld information from studies that showed that Vioxx increased risk of heart problems, which led to its recall in one of the bigger scandals of medicine.
Does Merck have a pattern of withholding information that indicate serious side effects in its drugs?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohhh, how funny you should mention this case. I'm holding my tongue...or fingers. I work on this case.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Merck is not unlike a depressing quantity of drug manufacturers in that in addition to this sort of behavior, they are especially guilty of turfing 'independent' research into drugs by mercenary research organizations which are biased into promoting the safety and efficacy of a drug.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Traceria: I know you have to follow strict confidentiality, but might you be able to share a thought or two on Merck's likely defense?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Merck is not unlike a depressing quantity of drug manufacturers in that in addition to this sort of behavior, they are especially guilty of turfing 'independent' research into drugs by mercenary research organizations which are biased into promoting the safety and efficacy of a drug.
Wow, that's blatantly accusatory. I'd love to see actual evidence of this, particularly in regards to Merck. Not saying that "mercenary research" hasn't ever taken place in the history of man, but having stared down documents for the past six years straight out of Merck's file rooms and off of their computers, I'm not seeing the connection. Just saying.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the article Phanto linked to: "One of their likely tactics is to argue that the cases of ONJ developed before they knew of the risks and had an obligation to inform patients. Considering that they didn’t fully follow the FDA’s instructions for warning, it looks like an uphill battle." The second sentence is a claim rather than a conclusion, despite falling in that section of the article.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
