Vioxx

  1. Major news organization blames parents for unborn child's death

    Flu vaccine fright squad attacks grieving parents

    When it comes to frightening folks into taking the flu vaccine, the mainstream media isn't above a little name calling. Tell them you're not ready to roll up your sleeve for a shot that sickens more people than it helps, and they'll call you irresponsible... heck, they've even been known to call you stupid.

    But now these bullying slime balls are slinging around their most despicable slur yet. They had the nerve to call a young woman who was fighting for her life a baby killer.

    You heard that right. The media and mainstream medicine -- which have worked hand in hand to turn abortion into an outpatient, conveyor belt procedure over the past 40 years -- actually had the nerve to accuse an Arkansas woman of killing her unborn baby because she made an informed decision (one supported by her OB-GYN no less!) to skip the flu vaccine.

    The left-wing nuts with a megaphone over at CNN reported that a 29-year-old Arkansas woman miscarried at five months after she got a very bad case of the flu. The poor gal, who suffered a variety of complications, was on a ventilator and unable to defend herself, which probably suited CNN just fine.

    After all, they don't need another embarrassment like when they botched their reporting on the Boston Marathon bombing or on the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision. These CNN reporters take more wrong turns than Mr. Magoo!

    Tragically, the young woman has now lost her battle. The worst part is that some rotten doc who wasn't even treating her had the audacity to suggest that the flu vaccine could have prevented the entire tragedy. They ought to take that doc's medical license away... or get her a muzzle... or BOTH!

    These mainstream ignoramuses talk about the flu vaccine like it's some sort of magical cure-all. The truth is that last year's flu vaccine failed 91% of the time for vulnerable populations like seniors. And there's NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that this year's vaccine is going to perform any better.

    But do you know what there IS evidence for? An inflammatory response to the flu shot that some researchers believe could lead to complications with pregnancies. So who in their right mind could blame a would-be mom for skipping a shot that probably wouldn't work, and that leaves countless pregnant women feeling sick and miserable?

    Here's the truth -- the drug companies base the flu vaccine on nothing but a guess about which strains will be prevalent in any given year. And the guessing is being done by the very same corporations that introduced Vioxx and other potentially deadly drugs to the market. So, trust me, these geniuses don't exactly have a crystal ball.

    You know that, and CNN should have known that too. Yet they chose to drag a defenseless woman and her deceased baby through the mud, simply to scare you into getting a flu vaccine.

    This woman and her husband deserved better... their baby deserved better... and so do you.

  2. Vioxx studies proven to be marketing "study"

    Vioxx studies proven to be marketing "study"

    Just in case you might be thinking that I bash Big Pharma too hard and too often, there's a new twist in the awful Vioxx story. Back in 2004, Vioxx was withdrawn from the market because it was linked to increased incidence of heart attack and stroke. The FDA estimates that in the five years Vioxx was on the market, its use caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks - of which as many as 40 percent were probably fatal.

    And now, four years after Vioxx was pulled from the market, the story just keeps getting worse.

    According to Merck internal memos uncovered by lawyers working on the Vioxx lawsuits, one of the "studies" that helped establish Vioxx as a superior painkiller wasn't a real study at all, but was, in fact, a stealth Merck marketing strategy.

    A memo from two top Merck executives even nominated the "study" for one of the company's internal marketing awards!

    When Vioxx was about to launch in 1999, Merck started something called the ADVANTAGE study. "ADVANTAGE" ostensibly being an acronym for "Assessment of Differences between Vioxx and Naproxen to Ascertain Gastrointestinal tolerability and Effectiveness."

    I can think of a shorter acronym they should have used: B.S.

    Apparently, Merck's actual motive for the study had nothing to do with a further clinical vetting of Vioxx. It was nothing more than a marketing tool designed to get doctors and patients familiar with the drug. The internal Merck memo summed up the study's goals this way: "The objectives were to provide product trial among a key physician group to accelerate uptake of Vioxx as the second entrant in a highly competitive new class."

    You'll notice, there's not one word in this "objective" about finding out if the drug is actually safe for consumers.

    My thoughts on this? FINALLY. For years, many have suspected Big Pharma companies of conducting "seeding" or marketing studies where the "clinical trial" was conducted by pharmaceutical company marketers rather than independent doctors. But there's been no smoking gun until now.

    Dr. Kevin Hill, a staff psychiatrist at McLean Hospital in Massachusetts who is working as a paid consultant for lawyers representing plaintiffs in the Vioxx suits, was indignant at the discovery, and wondered how it could impact future clinical trials. "ADVANTAGE was marketing framed as scientific research," he said. "I don't think people would be willing to [risk side effects] if they knew that the aim of a clinical trail was to boost profits for a pharmaceutical company."

    What's even more depressing is the fact that the dummy ADVANTAGE trial worked like a charm for Merck. In the five years Vioxx was on the market, it reaped annual profits as high as $2.5 billion.

    So now what? The editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) suggest that the institutional review boards that run clinical studies should simply ask whether a new trial is a seeding study, especially when a new experiment has all the hallmarks of a possible marketing stunt.

    But what's the point in asking for the truth from companies who seem to be in the business of lying? Apparently, the JAMA editors lack my kind of cynicism.

  3. Ghostwriters for medical researchers?

    Posted by: on
    According to a new report that's about to be published in a leading medical journal, Merck - a major Big Pharma company - actually wrote their own research reports for one of their drugs, and then found prestigious doctors to put their names on the published research.
  4. The FDA's hit parade of big "oops" stories

    The FDA has all the usual flaws that go hand-in-hand with any government bureaucracy. The difference is that when the FDA fouls up, people die.
  5. Son of Vioxx: RIP (for now)

    The longer the new drug stays off the U.S. market, the longer they have to clean up and settle the 11,000-odd lawsuits still pending against their LAST Cox-2 product
  6. Return of the Killer Painkiller

    Dr. Graham publicly postulated in 2005 that the drug was responsible for more like 140,000 American deaths and casualties
  7. Merck's comeuppance continues

    The drug, called Arcoxia, was the subject of a safety study involving nearly 35,000 subjects. The findings of that research were that this medication poses as much cardiovascular risk - if not more - than a decades-old NSAID called diclofenac.
  8. Vioxx

    Posted by: on
    Just when I think the evidence damning Merck and their killer drug Vioxx can't get any more incriminating, I'll come across something new about the case that absolutely appalls me…
  9. Prescription Painkiller Scandal

    I know I've talked a lot about the Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx and company) prescription painkiller scandal in the last 10 months, but what can I say?
  10. Are the drugs you're taking safe?

    Over 80% of American consumers are at least somewhat confident that the drugs they're taking are safe - and that the FDA is doing its job in fine fashion.

Items 1 to 10 of 13 total

Page: