Merck, on researchers: "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live."

[pnwmom]

According to court documents filed in the Vioxx case in Australia, Merck made up a list of doctors it wanted to target.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/drug-company-drew-up-doctor-hit-list/story-0-1225693586492

The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.

It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.


"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.

Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians, who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx.

SNIP

[supernova]

1. Who in their right mind

thinks it's ok to talk like this in company documents?!? ON PAPER!?!?!?!?!

#1 Rule of the Mob: Don't leave a paper trail. :P

[pnwmom]

2. Someone who thinks that "might" makes right?

:silly:

[supernova]

3. LOL Fixed

:-)

[teknomanzer]

9. These are corrupt people.

I do not believe that a person can accumulate that much wealth without dropping a few ethical concerns, if they even had them to begin with.

[whathehell]

12. Old Saying...."Behind every great fortune

there is a crime".

I believe Balzac said that...but I know I saw it within the pages of The Godfather.

[teknomanzer]

35. There is a tremendous irony here.

The industry is in the business of providing products for peoples health and wellbeing. Some would consider that a noble and compassionate goal, but how can such an unethical group of people be expected to have such altruistic aims. (And I don't want to hear about any magical "invisible hand" market theory sprinkled with bits of Ayn Rand) I don't think it would be so far fetched to believe that Big Pharma doesn't want you healthy they just want people to buy their expensive treatments.

[Blue_Tires]

45. when was the last time you saw a corporation get a severe punishment

for ANYTHING? They do it because they know when it all ends, nothing will happen

[CoffeeCat]

91. Someone who is drunk on power...

...and greed. These companies have bribed politicians into crafting laws and
policies that enrich these companies, even if those laws and policies kill
Americans.

Their profits are more important than the lives of human beings. When you
behave like this for a long time--disregarding humanity--it turns you into
a monster.

These people, because they are allowed to live without regulation or any sort
of morality, have become more sociopathic and destructive.

[laughingliberal]

4. No surprise here except that the information came out

The drug companies and insurance companies are, essentially, criminal organizations who have managed to get laws passed to excuse their criminality.

[pnwmom]

6. Perhaps you haven't noticed

that big pharma has many champions on DU.

[laughingliberal]

14. I've noticed. I'm waiting for them to show up and explain this.

You know, what with all that science and all those double blind placebo controlled studies....blah, blah, blah...

With all that evidence for the safety and efficacy of their products, you wouldn't think they'd have to resort to tactics like this, would you?

[pnwmom]

24. No, you'd think they wouldn't have to resort to these tactics if their products

were as good as they claim.

[laughingliberal]

26. I think we may have hit on something here.

Wonder where the defenders of the pharmaceutical companies are?


:crickets:

[malaise]

8. + 1,000

They are 'licensed to kill'.

[timeforpeace]

5. Vioxx was the only thing that helped my hip pain. Celebrex doesn't cut it.

[pnwmom]

7. What a shame, timeforpeace. My grandfather ended up in a wheelchair

because of his arthritis, and I remember what he went through.

[Juche]

10. Thats good

My HCTZ helps with my hypertension. I'm not opposed to pharma, but the staff at Merck was trying to destroy the careers of doctors because they spoke up and said that Vioxx was having negative side effects.

[DemReadingDU]

13. my mother-in-law took Vioxx

and she died. This was in 2002. We were quite shocked because at the time we couldn't figure out why she died of a heart attack, when she had no heart problems. Shortly after she died, we learned that Merck took Vioxx off the market because of the side effects. We joined up in a class-action lawsuit, which took forever to process.

Merck is currently involved in lawsuits stemming from the osteoporosis drug Fosamax for jaw bone destruction.

Why don't Big Pharma test these drugs more thoroughly before doctors prescribe them to patients?

[laughingliberal]

18. "Why don't Big Pharma test these drugs more thoroughly before doctors prescribe them to patients?"

I'm guessing the answer is money. Same answer as to why they just might cover up their knowledge of certain side effects.

[pnwmom]

22. Because the FDA changed the rules during the Bush administration.

Now the final stage of testing is essentially AFTER the drug is released to the public -- and we're all depending on doctors to file those adverse effects reports.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. Bush was President in 1997? I'll have to look that up.

:eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

11. what about ibuprofen? nt

[timeforpeace]

17. Prayer works better. Sadly, I'm agnostic.

[thecrow]

20. Hahahahahahahahahaha... ibuprofen?! hahahaha

:rofl:

No, you don't understand having arthritis and you can't stand because your knees are in such pain, your hips ache and won't support you, or your fingers don't work right. All this and nobody believes you because your pain is something they can't see, can't test.
Ibuprofen is a great drug if you have muscular aches from the gym.
Bone/joint pain? Another planet entirely.

[laughingliberal]

16. I have no problem with people taking a medication that helps as long as they are informed

I have a big problem with suppression of information regarding side effects and, especially, tactics like these against the whistleblowers.

[thecrow]

19. Vioxx worked great

until I had a stroke at 49.

[pnwmom]

23. Whoa. How has your recovery been? Hope you're doing okay. n/t

[thecrow]

69. Pretty good... thanks for asking

I was going to PM you, but I feel this needs to be "heard":
***********************************************************
I got my speech about 80% back in about 18 months. I'm still finding words. I have a hard time speaking on the telephone to strangers. What an abstract idea. I get judged as stupid when I get what I call "stroke mouthed". People are cruel that way.

I got my emotions under control in about 2 years: I don't cry at the drop of a hat anymore.
On the other hand, I know I used to feel more. Things have "flattened out" a lot.

I got my hands back in about two years. (except when I have bad days)
I had a kind boss who accepted my work even though it wasn't top notch.

I got driving back in 7 years. SEVEN YEARS. (I still don't drive in darkness, snow or rain because it distracts me so.)

I still cannot trust my memory.
I still cannot trust my balance, which makes stairs a great fearsome thing.
I can fall down all of a sudden while standing up or crossing a room. Great party feature.

I can no longer write by hand. I used to have beautiful handwriting. I really miss being able to dash off a note or write a familiar address without making at least three mistakes. An address. My letters and numbers come out all different sizes.
Very weird.
I am dyslexic now, which I never was before.

Concentration is hard for me. Distractions can take half a day. I have lost the ability to organize.

I have worked at home for the last nine years.... until I got "laid off" last year.
Prospects are grim.
I keep trying every day to prove myself.

I took Vioxx for about 2 months.
I went to sleep one night and woke up to this strange new life.
The miracle was that it didn't happen to more people.
These stories need to be out there.

Fortunately, my life was spared. I'm adjusting.
I cannot imagine the horror and tragedy of losing a family member because the doctor prescribed them a pill.
Just a little something to take away the pain...
It caused so much pain to so many.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Wrong place.

[mike_c]

21. there are lots of similar stories....

Vioxx is a damned effective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory. In an ideal world, people should have access to all the relevant information about both risks and benefits, be capable of making risk assessments on their own, and receive medical care that provides them with accurate and timely information about their own personal, on-going medical risks in real time. Most patients who took Vioxx had good results and many folks can take it with only minimal increase in cardiovascular risk. It's the statistical nature of that risk and the inability of potential patients to get accurate, honest, and real time information that makes it impossible to license medications with substantial risk for wide spread use. It's a damned shame.

[pnwmom]

25. If a drug has substantial risk why should it be licensed for widespread use?

Why shouldn't it only be licensed for limited use in patients without significant risk factors who haven't responded to other meds?

[mike_c]

28. risk is quantifiable-- if you can monitor your progress closely...

...and if you have all the information you need, you can manage risks intelligently.

Case in point-- statins like Lipitor have serious risk of side effects, particularly liver toxicity. I have both high circulating lipids and LDL, and unfortunately, early stage non-alcoholic steatohepititis (NASH), so I have real heart disease risk that I manage with-- you guessed it-- lipitor. But to make that work, I have to monitor my liver functions pretty closely-- currently every six weeks or so to make certain that my liver isn't impacted by the cholesterol meds.

Most risks are manageable if you have good, accurate information about your response in however close to real-time you need it in order to genuinely manage the risk. Obviously some risks are not manageable, and I'm not certain whether the risks associated with Vioxx are actually manageable-- they would not be, for example, if the cardiac side effects were completely misunderstood or if there was no way of monitoring them. I could not take lipitor safely if it were not possible to monitor my hepatic risk, but since I can, I'm just about as safe as someone without the additional risk factors.

I think my point in the original reply was that informed patients are the real key to intelligent risk management. Product bans are a poor substitute in cases where risks are in fact manageable with accurate and timely information-- they're used more often than not as a substitute for effective risk management. Lots of folks who got relief on Vioxx but don't get it with Celibrex certainly wish they had access to Vioxx, but with close cardiac monitoring to manage their side effect risk.

[pnwmom]

31. I think the real problem with Vioxx is that information on the risks was unavailable.

Like you, I haven't paid enough attention to Vioxx to know whether those risks might have been manageable (in an ideal world).

[thecrow]

70. Merck was actually publishing their own results

and then doctors were publishing their own glowing reports USING MERCKS OWN PUBLISHINGS AS A SOURCE.

The risks were minimized because Merck wanted something out there to compete with Celebrex. Billions of dollars were being made by a competitor! So they rushed through the (minimal)testing and ignored or fudged the bad stuff. On the day that they got FDA approval, Vioxx was ready to go onto pharmacy shelves. It was touted as the "wonder drug".
Initially used as an antiarthritis drug, it got prescribed as a pain drug. Fall down and hurt your knee? Vioxx.
Worked out too long at the gym? Vioxx. Tennis elbow? Vioxx. Headache? Vioxx.
This way, the insurance companies got to make more money off of it.
At the time it was finally pulled, it was even being prescribed for menstrual cramps.

I have an online friend whose husband dropped dead of a heart attack after taking it ONE WEEK. He was 35. No heart problems.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Heart attack or sudden cardiac arrest?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Why shouldn't that decision be left up to the Dr. and the patient?

[pnwmom]

41. Merck itself was preventing patients and doctors from making an informed decision

about the use of the drug. The doctor and the patient can't make an informed decision together as long as companies like Merck are withholding vital information -- and putting pressure on researchers to hold back negative data.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. All the information is out there now.

[pnwmom]

49. The research basically stopped when the drug was take off the market.

We don't know what further research might have revealed.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. Like the possibility that vioxx was a contributing factor in a small % of the AMIs and CVAs.

[pnwmom]

54. What is your point? This isn't really about Vioxx, it's about how Merck targeted

researchers in order to keep them from publishing data that might be unfavorable to their product.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. I'm shocked that people behave badly because of greed. That's never happened before. Oh wait.

[pnwmom]

61. People who understand that in relation to large corporations

sometimes seem to forget it where big pharma is concerned.

Corporations like Merck are no more human than any other corporation. Neither moral nor immoral, they are amoral -- only limited by the regulations that keep them in check. Unfortunately, during the Bush years they were allowed to push their drugs out into the market much more quickly than in the past.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. Vioxx was approved by the FDA on May 20th of 1999.

[pnwmom]

67. Thank you for the info on Vioxx. That doesn't make me less concerned, but more.

If a drug like that could be approved before they added the quick track process, imagine what could be approved now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. The Fast Track Drug Developement Program was implemented in 1997.

[pnwmom]

95. Do you know if Vioxx was approved under that program? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

96. You were sure it was the cause of the problem in post #22.

[pnwmom]

97. I'll take that as a "yes." n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. It is usually only given to drugs that show promise in treating life-threatening conditions.

And usually only those where no other drug has proven effective. So it would be highly doubtful that Vioxx was given fastrack status.

[superduperfarleft]

30. Lucky you it didn't kill you in the process. n/t

[timeforpeace]

33. LOL. The miniscule risk was worth the immense benefit. That's the tradeoff in drug therapy.

[pnwmom]

37. Except when you're the person with the heart attack or stroke,

the risk doesn't seem so miniscule.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. What % of the heart attacks and strokes that occurred in patients taking vioxx was caused by it?

[pnwmom]

43. Who knows? Merck's been working to curtail data gathering. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. What data would reveal the percentage?

[pnwmom]

50. You're the one that asked the question in the first place. What I'd like to know is,

why are you trying to turn this thread about drug company ethics -- that touches on Vioxx but could have involved any drug with dangerous side effects -- into a thread about the benefits of Vioxx?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Just expressing my opinion.

I wish merck had been open about things, Vioxx would still be on the market and my back wouldn't be hurting so bad right now.

[pnwmom]

58. I agree with you there. If Merck had taken a different approach the drug

might not have been pulled -- at least some patients might have been able to benefit from it.

[pnwmom]

68. The FDA estimates that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks,

about a third of them fatal. This was in addition to whatever strokes were caused by the drugs. Those numbers may seem miniscule to you, perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx



In addition to its own studies, on September 23, 2004 Merck apparently received information about new research by the FDA that supported previous findings of increased risk of heart attack among rofecoxib users (Grassley, 2004). FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. Then there are these studies.

Several very large observational studies have also found elevated risk of heart attack from rofecoxib. For example, a recent retrospective study of 113,000 elderly Canadians suggested a borderline statistically significant increased relative risk of heart attacks of 1.24 from Vioxx usage, with a relative risk of 1.73 for higher-dose Vioxx usage. (Levesque, 2005). Another study, using Kaiser Permanente data, found a 1.47 relative risk for low-dose Vioxx usage and 3.58 for high-dose Vioxx usage compared to current use of celecoxib, though the smaller number was not statistically significant, and relative risk compared to other populations was not statistically significant. (Graham, 2005).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. Vioxx was the only thing that helped my screwed up disc at L5-S1.

Now instead of the regular daily dose of vioxx I have to take a daily dose of 1200 mg of Naprosyn, 30 mg of Flexeril and the occasional Vicodin when it gets really bad.

[pnwmom]

39. The number of mgs taken isn't important. Some meds simply require more than others.

It's too bad you're not getting the relief you were getting, though. On the other hand, would you have wanted to risk a stroke? (Someone above said he or she had had one at the age of 49 due to Vioxx)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

42. The number of mgs taken isn't important? Are you serious?

I am at far more risk from the current medications than I ever was from the vioxx.

[pnwmom]

46. Yes, I'm serious -- when comparing completely different medications.

If you're looking at one medication, it clearly matters -- 1000 mgs of aspirin is not equivalent to 300 of aspirin.

But if you're comparing different meds, it's like apples and oranges -- 10 mgs of one could have stronger effects than 100 of another.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. That's the point I took a low dose of vioxx. Now I take a huge dose of naprosyn.

On top of that I have to take 2 other medications with the naprosyn to get close to the same relief.

[pnwmom]

56. But that low dose of Vioxx could have given you a stroke or a heart attack.

Just because the number of mgs was small doesn't mean that it was a safer drug.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

59. and the risk of that was miniscule. The other meds have well documented long term consequences.

[pnwmom]

62. You think the Bush FDA withdrew it because the risk was miniscule?

I bet the risk we knew of was the tip of the iceberg.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. The FDA didn't withdraw it. Independent studies showed a slight increase in risk.

[pnwmom]

66. So Merck withdrew it? They must have been sitting on some interesting data.

Data interesting enough that they wanted to "destroy" the researchers they couldn't otherwise control.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. The independent research in Canada showed only a slight increase in risk.

Merck withdrew it voluntarily. A lot of your "facts" seem to be wrong.

[pnwmom]

98. Merck agreed on an almost $5 BILLION settlement out of the goodness of its heart.

What a warm-hearted company.

:sarcasm:


Or maybe they thought they were getting a good deal, considering all the deaths and injuries they knew about.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. Who said that?

[pnwmom]

101. It was implied by all the people who act as if the number of actual injuries were small.

The truth is the injuries were great enough for Vioxx to make a calculated business decision to pay out $5 Billion in damages.

This wasn't some miniscule risk Merck was dealing with.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. Merck wasn't dealing with miniscule risk. Most of the patients taking vioxx were.

[pnwmom]

104. When you make a risk calculation, you need to take into account both the

likelihood of an adverse event's occurring, and the seriousness if the event does occur.

In this case the likelihood was relatively small, but the seriousness could be catastrophic.

And the evidence showed that Merck had been withholding data about these risks from doctors and patients. Clearly, Merck itself thought the risks were too high to share openly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. I make decisions based on risk calculations on a daily basis.

Merck shouldn't have withheld the information whenever they found out about it. Patients should have been able to make an informed decision based on the known risk.

[thecrow]

71. Well... so does Vioxx

And I understand your pain.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Yep. I still wish I had a choice.

[thecrow]

78. I wish I had a choice, too

I'd choose not to be a stroke survivor

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. You certainly should have been able to make an informed choice.

Did you have any other risk factors? Were they able to treat your stroke successfully? Did they identify the cause?

[thecrow]

82. See post #69

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. Sorry about your situation. Hope it improves.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. Have you sued Merck?

[flvegan]

15. If an animal rights activist had written this, they'd be in jail for terrorism.

At least here in the states.

[laughingliberal]

27. +1000 nt

[mike_c]

29. wish I could rec your response all by itself....

I have at least one personal friend with terrorist enhancement to her sentence because of animal rights and environmental justice activity. It is utterly crazy.

[bridgit]

32. Pft, and this is really what it is: corporations aren't even 'persons'...

They behave as would pernicious, metathesizing parasites & pathogens that conduct themselves as do viruses', its the greatest game of 'watch the birdie' watching people freak over corporate person-hood when a bottle of Lysol and a boar's hair brush would go a longer way

[anonymous171]

34. This is the corporate mindset. It can only be challenged by a similiar mindset

They thrive on our complacence, fear, and good nature.

[Nikki Stone1]

48. This is why corporate funding of the sciences needs to be severely monitored.

.

[pnwmom]

53. Agreed. And this isn't about Vioxx, or whether it works or the risks are worth it.

It's about a drug company trying to "destroy" researchers who might unearth negative information.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. We all know how ethical researchers are. Wakefield's autism research for instance. Oh wait.

Sounds like we need oversight over the whole lot.

[earth mom]

60. It's a witchhunt.

It's what they did to Dr. Wakefield in England because he was going against the medical establishment.

[anonymous171]

64. .

:spray:

[Posteritatis]

81. Funny, I thought they did that to Dr. Wakefield because he was an unethical fraud. (nt)

[earth mom]

85. The GMC trial of Dr. Wakefield was nothing short of shoot the messenger.

Dr. Wakefield listened to parents and tried to find out what was going on with their kids and was found guilty for the way in which he conducted his study. Not the results of the study
-----------------
Dr. Wakefield’s GMC Findings Delivered Today in London

In a nutshell, the GMC found Dr. Wakefield to have “showed callous disregard for the suffering of children” when he conducted his research of bowel disease and autism. The GMC was particularly upset about how Dr. Wakefield obtained blood samples from children at his son’s birthday party as controls for his study. They believe that his conduct at this birthday party has brought the medical profession “into disrepute.” The GMC also stated that Dr. Wakefield acted dishonestly, misleading and irresponsible when proposing his study that was later published in The Lancet.

<snip>

The most frightening aspect of these GMC findings is the silencing effect it could cause to scientist and researchers. These verdicts now prove that researchers who stumble upon science that is controversial have to worry about losing their licenses and careers.

Unfortunately, it seems that it is far easier for the GMC to destroy Dr. Wakefield’s career than to thoroughly research the uncomfortable hypothesis he brought to light. Could it be possible that the GMC is shooting the messenger instead of attempting to understand and solve the problem? As the parent of a child who suffered a vaccine reaction this point makes me really upset. My son and all the children like him to deserve objective, unbiased science looking into Dr. Wakefield’s hypothesis. I learned today that may not happen.

Today in London Dr. Wakefield said, “There's the political backlash to consider. I fear the GMC want to make an example of us. The issue was not about me, but about how to crush dissent. I scare the establishment because I care and I am diligent. I think they're terrified because they've not done adequate safety studies. I've been treated in the standard way in which people who raise these kinds of questions are treated. It's extremely challenging, but if I fail to stand up to the bullies, the price to be paid is enormous.”



http://www.talkaboutcuringautism.org/medical/wakefield-gmc-findings.htm

[Posteritatis]

87. The entire process ruins the trustworthiness of any of his conclusions.

He didn't "stumble across" anything, other than a realization that if you decide medical ethical standards are for other, lesser people, you're going to be disciplined and viewed with suspicion for damned good reasons. The results of the study have been refuted, of course, but Wakefield partisans will never admit that.

His nailing himself up to a cross with the typical Galileo complex doesn't help either.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Is that why the Lancet retracted his work and called it fraudulent?

[earth mom]

86. Here, educate yourself, if you can.

http://www.ageofautism.com/

[Posteritatis]

88. Yeah, that looks like a trustworthy and objective source. (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Lancet retracts 'utterly false' MMR paper....link included.

After medical council ruling last week that MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield was dishonest, journal finally quashes paper


The Lancet today finally retracted the paper that sparked a crisis in MMR vaccination across the UK, following the General Medical Council's decision that its lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had been dishonest.

The medical journal's editor, Richard Horton, told the Guardian today that he realised as soon as he read the GMC findings that the paper, published in February 1998, had to be retracted. "It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false," he said. "I feel I was deceived."

Many in the scientific and medical community have been pressing for the paper, linking the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) jab to bowel disease and autism, to be quashed. But Horton said he did not have the evidence to do so before the end of the GMC investigation last Thursday.

In 2004, when concerns were first raised about the conduct of the study, the Lancet asked the Royal Free hospital, where Wakefield and his fellow authors worked, to investigate. But Professor Humphrey Hodgson, then vice-dean of the Royal Free and University College school of medicine, wrote to the journal to say it had found no problems. "We are entirely satisfied that the investigations performed on children reported in the Lancet paper had been subjected to appropriate and rigorous ethical scrutiny," he said at that time.

The GMC last week disagreed. Children had been subjected to invasive procedures that were not warranted, a disciplinary panel ruled. They had undergone lumbar punctures and other tests solely for research purposes and without valid ethical approval.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/02/lancet-retracts-mmr-paper


That's the horse you are backing?

:rofl: :spray:

[Blue Owl]

89. Our friends at Big Pharma

Always looking out for us.

:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

94. Smoke 'em out of their holes!

:silly:

[daleo]

102. As with Merck and medical researchers

So it is with oil companies and global warming science.