|
|
NEWS
RECALLS
COMPLAINT FORM
SCAM ALERTS
RESOURCES
Small Claims Guide Class Actions Lemon Laws FAQ Newsletters |
Share |
| Automotive Education Employment Electronics Family Finance Health Homeowners Insurance Pets Shopping Travel |
|
|
|
![]() |
Researchers Claim Vioxx Safety Study Was Actually Marketing PlanMerck challenges researchers' assertions regarding painkiller |
|||||||||||||
|
August 19, 2008
Merck was forced to withdraw the prescription drug in 2004 after tests linked it to increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The researchers outline their case against Merck in the latest issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. "Documentary evidence shows that Advantage is an example of marketing framed as science," they wrote. The team gathered documents collected by plaintiffs' lawyers in the personal injury and liability lawsuits filed against the pharmaceutical company. The researchers claim the real purpose of the study, called Advantage, was to promote the drug as an arthritis treatment when it became commercially available. Vioxx received FDA approval not long afterward and it quickly became one of Merck's most profitable products. In their report, Kevin Hill of McLean Hospital in Massachusetts, and colleagues, said the practice of "seeding" the drug with a marketing study, disguised as science, raises a number of ethical issues.Merck takes strong exception to the researcher's conclusions, and denies Advantage was a "seeding" project. It said the study in question compared Vioxx with another medication in its effect on stomach upset. It also said the article contained "numerous inaccuracies." Merck faced a flurry of litigation over Vioxx. After insisting it would contest each of the thousands of product liability lawsuits over Vioxx, Merck agreed in November 2007 to settle claims over the withdrawn painkiller for $4.85 billion. The cases were filed in connection with Vioxx's removal from the market, with plaintiffs charging the company should have acted sooner. More than 27,000 consumers or their family members filed suit against Merck as a result. In the last three years, only a handful of the cases had gone to trial. Report Your Experience
|
|||||||||||||
Advertisement
|
|
Custom Search
|
||||
|
AUTOMOTIVE Dealers Manufacturers Service Extended Warranties Lemon Laws Recalls Tires Transporters FAMILY Aging Children, Parenting Recalls Dating Education Entertainment Pets Weddings |
FINANCE Annuities Banks Credit Cards Debt Collection Debt Counseling Insurance Investing Loans Mortgages Payday Loans Student Loans Tax Prep HEALTH Doctors Drugs, Pharmacies Health Clubs Hearing Care Hospitals Nursing Homes Nutrition, Diets Vision Care Weight Loss |
HOUSE & HOME Appliances Cookware Furniture Home Improvements Lawn & Garden Movers Pools & Spas Realtors, Rental Agents Recalls Utilities ELECTRONICS Cable TV/DBS Cameras Cell Phones Computers Home Electronics Internet Access Local Phone Service Long Distance VoIP |
SHOPPING In-Home Online Retail Stores Sporting Goods Supermarkets Telemarketers TRAVEL Airlines Bus Lines Car Rental Cruises Hotels Travel Agents Trains RESOURCES Class Actions Complaint Form Small Claims Guide Lemon Laws |
CONSUMER NEWS Latest News Automotive Telecom Financial Health Homeowners Scams Seniors Travel More ... RECALLS Automotive Children's Products Drugs Food Household Products Sporting Goods ABOUT US FAQ Privacy Policy Advertise With Us Newsroom Syndication Terms of Use |
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2009 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|