What's good for the goose!

No one should be surprised by the lack of comprehension that Taicheeze has of basic medical research and chemical engineering here.

After all, this is the same guy who denies the link between HIV and AIDS.
 
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.

I took Celebrex while I was using Fermara, but I only used it on the really bad days of bone ache. I don't like taking pharama drugs. I use herbs, vitamins and minerals when I can.

Sorry about the back, back pain sucks, I am dealing with siatica, I am trying everything but drugs to alleviate it. Water aerobics is next.
 
Side effects of Vioxx
Cardiovascular

The cumulative rate of serious cardiovascular thromboembolic adverse events (heart attacks, angina pectoris, and peripheral vascular events) was reported to occur in a higher percentage of patients receiving rofecoxib (the active ingredient contained in Vioxx) (1.8%) compared to patients receiving naproxen (0.6%) in the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research (VIGOR) study. The relationship of the cardiovascular findings to the use of rofecoxib is not known.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/vioxx-side-effects.html
====================================================================================
Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D. and Larry Sasich, Pharm. D, M.P.H,
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Before the FDA's Arthritis Drugs Advisory Committee on the
Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAID) Celecoxib (Celebrex) and Rofecoxib (Vioxx)
Feb. 2001

1. We strongly urge the retention of the NSAID class-warning label for these drugs, possibly adding that there is no evidence of statistically significant reduction in serious GI toxicity for celecoxib. This should take the form of a box warning (for all the drugs) which should be placed at the beginning of the label.

2. A second box warning about cardiovascular toxicity needs to be added. It should warn of the lack of platelet aggregation inhibition of the drugs which protects those at risk from an increased occurrence of heart attacks. In addition, the evidence which is rapidly accumulating about the heart damage caused by these drugs must be mentioned in this cardiovascular box warning. We urge consultation with the cardio-renal division of FDA and, possibly with FDA's advisory committee to accomplish this task.

The FDA was told of possible adverse effects in 2/2001
 
I took Celebrex while I was using Fermara, but I only used it on the really bad days of bone ache. I don't like taking pharama drugs. I use herbs, vitamins and minerals when I can.

Sorry about the back, back pain sucks, I am dealing with siatica, I am trying everything but drugs to alleviate it. Water aerobics is next.

Eh....it's nothing compared to before the surgery. I was on a fentanyl patch and taking Vicodin for breakthrough pain.
 
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.

You need to stop braying like a jackass and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, as I've given equal condemnation to the FDA and provided a link to an article that sites the cases. If a mouse clik is too much for you to handle, then that's your problem.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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?



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...

Again, you're braying like a jackass....first you say my premise is a "strawman" then you go right ahead and demonstrate it's relationship to Merck.

Here's the thing, bunky....YOU are bending over backwards to try and vindicate Merck DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE ARE COURT CASES THAT PROVE THEIR GUILT!

That YOU are either willfully ignorant of this information of just being a corporate toadie of insipid stubborness does not change those facts.

And again, what kind of POS defends a person or corporation that knowingly and willingly puts out a product that has a higher than "acceptable" fatality risk...and tries to cover it up?
 
No one should be surprised by the lack of comprehension that Taicheeze has of basic medical research and chemical engineering here.

After all, this is the same guy who denies the link between HIV and AIDS.

1. This idiot just REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE FACTS, AS THE ARTICLE I LINKED PROVIDED.

2. This idiot is STILL nursing a years old grudge where I challenged him and his cohorts to provide the scientific paper that PROVES HIV=AIDS (to date, they haven't).
 
Side effects of Vioxx
Cardiovascular

The cumulative rate of serious cardiovascular thromboembolic adverse events (heart attacks, angina pectoris, and peripheral vascular events) was reported to occur in a higher percentage of patients receiving rofecoxib (the active ingredient contained in Vioxx) (1.8%) compared to patients receiving naproxen (0.6%) in the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research (VIGOR) study. The relationship of the cardiovascular findings to the use of rofecoxib is not known.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/vioxx-side-effects.html
====================================================================================
Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D. and Larry Sasich, Pharm. D, M.P.H,
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Before the FDA's Arthritis Drugs Advisory Committee on the
Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAID) Celecoxib (Celebrex) and Rofecoxib (Vioxx)
Feb. 2001

1. We strongly urge the retention of the NSAID class-warning label for these drugs, possibly adding that there is no evidence of statistically significant reduction in serious GI toxicity for celecoxib. This should take the form of a box warning (for all the drugs) which should be placed at the beginning of the label.

2. A second box warning about cardiovascular toxicity needs to be added. It should warn of the lack of platelet aggregation inhibition of the drugs which protects those at risk from an increased occurrence of heart attacks. In addition, the evidence which is rapidly accumulating about the heart damage caused by these drugs must be mentioned in this cardiovascular box warning. We urge consultation with the cardio-renal division of FDA and, possibly with FDA's advisory committee to accomplish this task.

The FDA was told of possible adverse effects in 2/2001

No shit, sherlock.....I already posted an article that mentioned it in brief and I personally stated that the FDA shares the blame.

This was known for sometime, and those who were following the case knew of it. Here, FYI:


How Did the Vioxx Debacle Happen? USA Today / Lancet

Tue, 12 Oct 2004



http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/10/12.php


So no matter how much you bitch and whine and dance, my original assertion stands.....and I have NO problem with cleaning house with the FDA as well.

Got that now, bunky?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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/2007/0711...l/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.


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.

Notice folks, how this SuperFreaking Fool just makes blanket statements with NOTHING to support them but his personal supposition and conjecture. Such is common with willfully ignorant flunkies of corporate greed. See, as long as it's not their asses affected (or that of anyone they personally care about) then they defend the corporate realm to the end. Pathetic, but not unexpected.
 
Back
Top