Merck's cover-up
In the last Daily Dose, I recapped for you some of the more shocking and egregious facts in the ongoing Vioxx debacle. I also promised to show you even more evidence of not only the drug's danger, but also the desperate cover-up Merck is engaging in to help limit its already enormous potential exposure in U.S. liability courts. Here goes:
Evidence is surfacing (from outside the U.S., naturally) that despite Merck's vehement claim that Vioxx only increases heart attack and stroke risk after 18 months or more of therapy, the drug may have caused a jump in the likelihood of coronary events much sooner than this in many users…
According to a recent Reuters article: - The Canadian Medical Association Journal recently published a study indicating Vioxx's heart-health risks begin FAR EARLIER in treatment than Merck would have us believe.
- Researchers from Montreal's McGill University Health Center reviewed three years' worth of data and concluded that fully one fourth of Vioxx patients who suffer heart attacks do so within two WEEKS of taking their first dose of the drug.
- Independent expert analysis of data submitted to the FDA for review by Merck & Co. itself indicate that heart attack and stroke risk among Vioxx-takers likely increased almost IMMEDIATELY after beginning therapy with the drug.
If these kinds of findings gather any more momentum from similar research or exposure in the mainstream media, it could have HUGE implications for the now more than 11,500 lawsuits pending against Merck for Vioxx-related liability. The lynchpin of Merck's defense in many of these trials is the 18-month period that previous published analysis of Vioxx study data indicates as statistically safe to take the drug.
What if this key point of the defense is credibly repudiated? Imagine how many more of these pending trials will end up in mammoth awards for the plaintiffs.
What if it's shown that Merck fudged the numbers to make it seem like Vioxx was safe for up to 18 months? If that gets out, every jury will be a lynch-mob, every judge a "hanging judge."
The bottom-line question is this: Is the currently accepted year-and-a-half liability threshold truly accurate for this killer painkiller's effects? Is that REALLY what the data pointed to in the studies/reports Merck used to establish this liability benchmark? Find out in the next Daily Dose. |
