About the Vioxx Verdict

[question everything]

I am both lucky and blissfully ignorant and do not take any prescription medication.

Yet, we know that any thing that we put into our bodies - food, medicine, herbal supplements - is going to generate some kind of a reaction. And the most severe reaction will be with patent medicine. Why? Because they are designed that way. Because in our Western Medicine we believe in nuking - viruses, bacteria, diseases.

The FDA will not approve any drug unless the difference between it and a nothing, or some other treatment - is clear and strong.

If you are taking any medicine, and if your pharmacist has given you a fact sheet - as s/he should have - go read it. Especially the side effects. Or perhaps don't. You will be scare.

I know of several people who swore by Vioxx. Who suffered from Arthritis for years until Vioxx came along.

I was not in the court room and did not follow the trial. And I certainly am not an admirer of the pharmaceutical industry, not the way it blackmails the American people.

But I have to wonder... Every thing that we put into our bodies will generate side effects. At some point the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA will have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the side effects. For every drug that is being discontinued, especially experimental drugs for cancer there are many anguished sick people who feel that they were given the death penalty.

What should pharmaceutical houses do? As it is it takes on average 10 years for a drug to come to the market - and meanwhile sick people are dying waiting for approval. Can a pharmaceutical house predict all the side effects, knowing that each of us is different and will react differently to anything that we put into our bodies?

Was a real neglect shown to the jury, or was it just, again, a jury that wants to stick it to the deep pockets?

I don't know. I wish that we, as a society, did not pop a pill for the slightest uneasy feeling. I wish that pharmaceutical did not advertise for drugs that one needs a prescription. I wish that senior, or the ones with lack of health insurance did not have to pay hundred of dollars a month for tiny pills that would keep them alive and free of pain. I wish...

[lala_rawraw]

1. I was on Vioxx and Bextra for my Lupus

And I developed a heart murmur, so my doctor took me off. This was prior to the whistleblower coming forward, the Vioxx was that is.

[question everything]

27. Good for you doctor who monitored you closely and

took you off the drug.

All medications have side effects and it is up to the doctors and patients to determine how closely they should be monitored while continue using it, or whether they should be taken off. Even though the drug is the same for all of us, we are different.

[pitohui]

2. vioxx makes a real difference in quality of life

for some people it makes a real difference, it really does

if you've never struggled w. chronic pain, you cannot know

i think the verdict is wrong & if not struck down provides a powerful disincentive to keep cox-2 inhibitors on the market

[ret5hd]

13. wouldn't you prefer to know of the heart problems?

kerck wanted to keep it secret.

[pitohui]

15. yes you are correct

there should be a penalty certainly but this is just unreasonable

there is point beyond which you don't even care, it is not worth living if the pain won't stop

[ret5hd]

24. yes, i agree that vioxx should be available...

but i don't believe the punitive damages were targeted at the drugs problems...they were targeted at merck concealing evidence of these problems.

[ElectroPrincess]

22. I had a choice years ago to "gut it out" on tylenol, ibuprofen OR

Take vioxx. I made the right (former) choice although the post surgical pain was almost unbearable. Hell, now I wouldn't come within a mile of other cox-2 inhibitors including that OTC "heart gernade" pills (Alleve, etc.).

Nope, I'd rather have to find behavioral ways to deal with chronic pain rather than have my HEART EXPLODE. You know, when that happens you don't feel anything.

No, fleece the criminal Pharmaceutical corporations for all that they are worth. Believe this - in a few years, if you aren't one of the upper five percent of the income earners in the USA, you won't be able to afford the hot stuff they plan to research in the future.

Universal Health Care should be here yesterday. Instead we are making these selfish Pharmaceuticals even more bloated and grasping than usual.

Keep up the good judicial work! :-)

[gristy]

3. 250 million was insane

That verdict was just nuts.

[Skidmore]

7. But I bet that smack on the nose got the attention of the

drug company. Those corrupt corporations will continue to knowingly market defective products unless penalized. That verdict is just fine with me. Besides, they'll probably try to have it reduced.

[greatauntoftriplets]

10. Of course they will...

since most of it was punitive damages. And it is already being appealed.

[fishnfla]

28. Yeah but...there are 4,000 other lawsuits pending

Merck done wrong with Vioxx for sure, but they make alot of other drugs that help people too. Some important ones of which I use every day.

I already know that their patient assistance program has been severly curtailed and all of the samples upon which I rely are no longer proferred.

I heard that lawyer on NPR chortling about the truth. It sounded to me like he won the jackpot.

253 million for this one case alone, I dunno just doesnt seem right.

[AuntieM1957]

9. Beg to differ, the nutty part was Merck knowing of the risk

and keeping quiet.

Tell that woman who lost her husband that was sane, wouldcha?

Cheese Louise!

[ret5hd]

4. The FDA will not approve any drug unless the difference between it...

and a nothing, or some other treatment - is clear and strong.

i'm sorry, but this is false.

read some of the stuff about the latest anti-depressants...prozac and related...the pharmas practically had to falsify data to get it to look even MARGINALLY better than placebos...oops, don't like that trial, maybe the next one will be better...oops, not that one either, maybe one more time...

[greatauntoftriplets]

8. Yep.....and thank you.

Big pharma companies support gummint with mega-bucks. They have an enormous lobbying presence. The "studies" mean diddly shit.

Because the campaign contributions (to both sides!!!!) will stop rolling in if the FDA starts getting too picky.

[K-W]

11. indeed.

It just needs to statistically significant, not "clear and strong"

[question everything]

14. True. But the statistically significant can be vague

I've never liked statistics but I remember some 15 or 18 years ago there was a program on PBS. This was before the FDA was pressured to ease its control and it ended up wrong in all directions.

And the example was something that if you had 27 positives (don't remember the sample size) it would be significant, but if only 26, it would not.

What always used to bother me is, say only 5% benefit from an experimental drug for an otherwise fatal disease. The FDA won't approve it, but what if you are one of that 5%?

I think that it started with AIDS, when many realized that if you are going to die, you are going to take your chances, even if your chances are only 5%.

[pitohui]

17. exactly & don't kid yourself you could be in that 5 %

i've read posts on this very site claiming that cox-2 inhibitors kill no more pain than a placebo

i am sorry

such posters are mad!

placebos do nothing for chronic pain

for me a cox-2 inhibitor has a fast & immediate & powerful non-narcotic effect

this is gold

merck is not just an evil grasping halliburton, their mistake may have harmed some people but don't forget it also helped many others, it is not a pure black/white situation

[K-W]

23. No, if the medicine helps any percentage of the people its OK.

Because of the nature of statistics things are never exact, results vary. If it is significant it means that the effect is proven in the statistics.

If the effect is insignificant, it doesnt mean it only helped a few people, it means the statstics dont prove it had any effect at all.

[elehhhhna]

16. Yep. They approve based on the honor-system. The pharma

co's track & report their own trials & safety info.

As for side effects, not mentioning potential death is a biggie, right? Death is a side effects one should try to avoid.

Whatever happened to good old codeine?

[pitohui]

19. are you serious, codeine is a scheduled drug

if i take codeine, first of all, i can't get it often enough, because i can't take codeine every day, the doc won't prescribe it & get on a DEA list

second of all, if i take codeine, i can't drive so i can't get to work so i can't make a living

that's what happened to codeine

chronic pain victims cannot live a normal life on codeine, that is fine for drug addicts, but for people who have dreams & want to achieve something or even be able to drive to the store without being in violation of DUI laws, codeine don't cut it

as i said in the other thread, i'm almost tempted to close the thread & go away because people who have never been crippled by chronic pain don't & can't understand what's at stake here

codeine my fat white ass!

honestly do not know whether to laugh or cry

[elehhhhna]

29. Works for my migraines, but you're right in that

I don't take it every day--which would be necessary for a chronic condition.

[jilln]

20. right, they keep trying on different animals until they find one

it works on. Then they just don't report all the other tests.

[AuntieM1957]

5. Delighted that the verdict was handed down in TEXAS n/t

gives me hope that current reign of error will come to an end.

Also, fairly glad to make my 500TH POST.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:
:party: :party: :party: :party: :party: :party:

[greatauntoftriplets]

12. Congrats, AuntieM1957!!!!

You made an excellent point with your 500th post!!!

:toast: :party:

On edit: spelled your username correctly. Sorry, was posting quickly.

[ret5hd]

6. and also, weren't they aware of this prob for 5 years...

and decided to just not tell anyone...in fact threaten the livliehoods of those that came forward?

[buzzard]

18. I would take it again in a heartbeat if it comes back on the market,

it is the only arthritis drug that I have taken that worked really well. I was taking it for a long period of time at a high dose and it is a risk I would take again. I tried everything from acupuncture osteopathy herbal remedies and many other drugs but it worked for me.

[pitohui]

21. yeah i hear that

<hugs>

it can be worth the risk to be free of the pain

[buzzard]

25. Thanks, it sure can.n/t

[question everything]

26. Or, at least, if you and your doctor know that there is a risk

you will be monitored closely.

There are many drugs on the market with known risks. The FDA puts what it calls a black box or a black label, not sure, but does not ban it altogether.

[Sgent]

30. The problem is

that this guy died of an arrithmia, and Vioxx has never been shown to increase the chance of an arrithmia. It does damage to the heart, but doesn't cause arrithmia's.

The only chronic painkillers that are regularly used (narcotic) are things such as oxycotion, and the all time favorite is methodone -- yes that methodone. That's what the side effects have to be compared to, not your average doese of codiene.

As for Alieve, its been around for 40 years, and one study found a slight increase in heart problems-- something that conflicts with years of studies. Discuss it with your physician, but I would think most would consider alieve as safe as any of them. One note, if your taking alieve or motrin, get a script for it -- its cheaper than buying it over the counter.