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?
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
Ohhh, how funny you should mention this case. I'm holding my tongue...or fingers. I work on this case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
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?
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
I won't add anything myself, but here are two news items that relate:
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.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
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.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :