What's good for the goose!

Superfreak said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You're such a toadie, Freak....you kiss corporate ass with a reaction time that would put Pavlov's dogs to shame.

There's no such thing as "may have" it DID happen! A matter of record and historical fact in the court of law. The victims families could care less about your stats...and if YOU are willing to put YOUR kids on the sacrificial alter of corporate greed, that's your business...so much more to pity you.


We put people away for LIFE for the murder of 1 person in this country.....mass homicide from a product they KNEW had a high probability of death should be treated no different.
Click to expand...
LMAO... no such thing as may have, yet the article YOU linked to said... 'may have'... ok Zappa.
Click to expand...

The "may have" goes to the numbers, you pitiful Freak.....that YOU are willing to accept just one death to protect the name and ideology of corporate profits speaks volumes of what a disgusting toadie you are.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So a company puts out a drug that they KNOW has a better than average potential to kill it's users, and YOU are quibbling about stats??!!?? It's a BIG difference from drugs that are pulled from the market AFTER they are discovered to cause a HIGH incidence of fatalities that didn't show up in the pre-sale testing.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting that it has a 'better than average potential to kill its users'????

Less than 1/10th of 1 percent of all cases where it 'may have contributed' to death... that = HIGH incidence?

Sorry, but no matter how spotless and helpful a person is, the second they knowingly and willingly contribute to a death of an innocent, they are prosecuted as a CRIMINAL, and sentenced accordingly.

Why should a corporation be treated any different?
Oh, and a primer for your education:

FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html
Click to expand...

do you comprehend those words?
 
Superfreak said:
Where are you getting that it has a 'better than average potential to kill its users'????

Less than 1/10th of 1 percent of all cases where it 'may have contributed' to death... that = HIGH incidence?



do you comprehend those words?
Click to expand...

Do you EVER read beyond the headlines, you intellectually dishonest POS?

David Graham, the associate director for science in FDA's office of drug safety, made the estimate based on 92.8 million U.S. prescriptions for Vioxx between 1999 and 2003. It's part of a study Graham conducted in cooperation with Kaiser Permanente.

Merck pulled Vioxx, a popular pain reliever widely used by arthritis patients, off the market in September, saying it was "putting patient safety first" but the Wall Street Journal reported earlier that company officials had fought for years to protect the highly profitable drug and to keep news of the health risks quiet.

The study found that high doses of Vioxx, or rofecoxib, tripled risks of heart attacks and sudden cardiac death. Graham planned to present the findings at an epidemiology conference Aug. 25, but his supervisors said the results were "too preliminary" and recommended that the study be submitted first to a medical journal so it could undergo peer review or be presented at the conference with an alternative FDA opinion.

When the study was presented Aug. 25, the abstract said, "[T]his and other studies cast serious doubt on the safety of rofecoxib ... and its use by physicians and patients" at doses exceeding 25 milligrams. "When Graham submitted a revised, final version to FDA on Sept. 30, FDA's announcement of the study's release did not mention specific data on cardiovascular risks.

About 20 million Americans had taken Vioxx by the time Merck withdrew it.

And then there's this from 2007:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071113/full/450324b.html

Merck has won 11 Vioxx cases so far, whereas plaintiffs have prevailed in only 5.

If you put out a drug you KNOW has a high risk of killing it's users, and people subsequently die, that is MANSLAUGHTER!

Do you comprehend THAT, bunky? But hey, they settled without admitting guilt, so your toadie ass can relax because no one YOU know died, right?

YOU disgust me.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Do you EVER read beyond the headlines, you intellectually dishonest POS?

David Graham, the associate director for science in FDA's office of drug safety, made the estimate based on 92.8 million U.S. prescriptions for Vioxx between 1999 and 2003. It's part of a study Graham conducted in cooperation with Kaiser Permanente.

Merck pulled Vioxx, a popular pain reliever widely used by arthritis patients, off the market in September, saying it was "putting patient safety first" but the Wall Street Journal reported earlier that company officials had fought for years to protect the highly profitable drug and to keep news of the health risks quiet.

The study found that high doses of Vioxx, or rofecoxib, tripled risks of heart attacks and sudden cardiac death. Graham planned to present the findings at an epidemiology conference Aug. 25, but his supervisors said the results were "too preliminary" and recommended that the study be submitted first to a medical journal so it could undergo peer review or be presented at the conference with an alternative FDA opinion.

When the study was presented Aug. 25, the abstract said, "[T]his and other studies cast serious doubt on the safety of rofecoxib ... and its use by physicians and patients" at doses exceeding 25 milligrams. "When Graham submitted a revised, final version to FDA on Sept. 30, FDA's announcement of the study's release did not mention specific data on cardiovascular risks.

About 20 million Americans had taken Vioxx by the time Merck withdrew it.

And then there's this from 2007:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071113/full/450324b.html

Merck has won 11 Vioxx cases so far, whereas plaintiffs have prevailed in only 5.

If you put out a drug you KNOW has a high risk of killing it's users, and people subsequently die, that is MANSLAUGHTER!

Do you comprehend THAT, bunky? But hey, they settled without admitting guilt, so your toadie ass can relax because no one YOU know died, right?

YOU disgust me.
Click to expand...

No, it is not manslaughter you dolt. But again, by your standard their would be NO pharmaceutical companies... which would mean no drugs to help people, which would lead to greater numbers of dead and suffering. Since you support that, that means you are guilty of MANSLAUGHTER and ASSAULT.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So a company puts out a drug that they KNOW has a better than average potential to kill it's users, and YOU are quibbling about stats??!!?? It's a BIG difference from drugs that are pulled from the market AFTER they are discovered to cause a HIGH incidence of fatalities that didn't show up in the pre-sale testing.

Sorry, but no matter how spotless and helpful a person is, the second they knowingly and willingly contribute to a death of an innocent, they are prosecuted as a CRIMINAL, and sentenced accordingly.

Why should a corporation be treated any different?


Oh, and a primer for your education:

FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html
Click to expand...


FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths.....exactly,...and THEY okayed the drug for sale

Then they made the company put a WARNING on the drug the very next year....but still okayed it for sale to the public.....
 
SmarterthanYou said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No one here gave the FDA a "pass", bunky.....that's just a bullhorn you knee-jerk corporate toadies are using to "defend" Merck on some insane level.

Here, FYI:

http://www.forbes.com/2005/08/19/mer...819graham.html
Click to expand...


oh for crying out loud!!! you seriously think that increasing the size and budget of the FDA is holding them accountable?? you're an even bigger idiot today than you were yesterday. go sit the fuck down.
Click to expand...

No stupid, READ! Making them accountable to oversight plus revamping of their resources to avoid errors and possible corruption goes with that package.

Stop lying about everything that proves you wrong, or at least READ THOROUGHLY what is presented to you. If you don't understand, get an adult to explain it to you.
 
NOVA said:
FDA Estimates Vioxx Caused 27,785 Deaths.....exactly,...and THEY okayed the drug for sale

Then they made the company put a WARNING on the drug the very next year....but still okayed it for sale to the public.....
Click to expand...

Which makes them just as guilty for the deaths CAUSED by Vioxx. Do your research into the lawsuits, because some of them PROVE that people died as a direct result.
 
What I find most disturbing is the "logic" that since Merck has for years provided quality service to the public and since the VIOXX deaths are a relatively small percentage in it's distribution, then my assertions are wrong.

Okay, let's apply that "logic" to the following scenario: YOU have a local physcian who has served the community well and faithful for 30 years. Then it's discovered that in order to make a fast buck and maintain continuity of his practice, he knowingly and willingly distributed a drug to many of his patients THAT HE KNEW had a high probability of fatality....BUT he tells them there is NO such risk. Subsequently, a few children and several adults die. The physician deeply apologies, offers a lifetime of free service and care to the surviving family members, and promises to never do it again.

Should that physician be allowed to continue to practice?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Which makes them just as guilty for the deaths CAUSED by Vioxx. Do your research into the lawsuits, because some of them PROVE that people died as a direct result.
Click to expand...


Really ?....then why didn't you bitch ONE WORD about the FDA.....?.....Nary a word that they okayed the drug for sale....but whined on and on about
the manufacturer...

WTF would I research the lawsuits....this is your rant, not mine...the case is in the courts, other than that, I don't give a shit about it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What I find most disturbing is the "logic" that since Merck has for years provided quality service to the public and since the VIOXX deaths are a relatively small percentage in it's distribution, then my assertions are wrong.

Okay, let's apply that "logic" to the following scenario: YOU have a local physcian who has served the community well and faithful for 30 years. Then it's discovered that in order to make a fast buck and maintain continuity of his practice, he knowingly and willingly distributed a drug to many of his patients THAT HE KNEW had a high probability of fatality....BUT he tells them there is NO such risk. Subsequently, a few children and several adults die. The physician deeply apologies, offers a lifetime of free service and care to the surviving family members, and promises to never do it again.

Should that physician be allowed to continue to practice?
Click to expand...


Strawman....

Then it's discovered that in order to make a fast buck

knowingly and willingly distributed a drug THAT HE KNEW had a high probability of fatality

BUT he tells them there is NO such risk.


This is what the courts will decide on....was it greed, did they KNOW.....thats where the FDA comes in,...NO RISK ?...there were warnings on the label....
a high probability of fatality ??? .135% ? is that a high probably ? and thats only in the US, with millions more worldwide, that percentage decreases substantially....

You're raving like a lunatic...
 
NOVA said:
Really ?....then why didn't you bitch ONE WORD about the FDA.....?.....Nary a word that they okayed the drug for sale....but whined on and on about
the manufacturer...

WTF would I research the lawsuits....this is your rant, not mine...the case is in the courts, other than that, I don't give a shit about it.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked my question....did the FDA approve the drug using false information? If Merck gave them knowingly false information, how can you blame the FDA? Other than gubmint BAAAAD, please.
 
As an aside....all NSAIDS have the same issue, not just Vioxx.

Ibuprofen, naproxen, celebrex, mobic, etc...there's a shitload of them.

I still use ibuprofen for headaches and when my fused back acts up, I take s mobic and a muscle relaxer for a few days.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The "may have" goes to the numbers, you pitiful Freak.....that YOU are willing to accept just one death to protect the name and ideology of corporate profits speaks volumes of what a disgusting toadie you are.
Click to expand...

Actually, he's willing to accept it in the name of science...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top