A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 25th 07, 09:09 AM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
JOHN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 583
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer


"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.html wrote:

The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from
Merck.


Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source.


LOL



  #22  
Old August 25th 07, 11:55 AM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Coleah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

On Aug 25, 2:35 am, "JOHN" wrote:
"Myrl" wrote in message

ups.com...



You are free to believe what you wish!


you sure do

belief: Whatever an individual is willing to accept without direct
verification by experience or without the support of evidence, resulting in
assumption which is taken as a basis for action or non-action.

"I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and
what I believe - I believe what I believe is right." -George W. Bush, in
Rome, July 22, 2001

Myrl and Coleen are classic examples of:

In the entire history of man, no one has ever been brainwashed and realized,
or believed, that he had been brainwashed. Those who have been brainwashed
will usually passionately defend their manipulators, claiming they have
simply been "shown the light" . . . or have been transformed in miraculous
ways. ------Dick Sutphen


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another Perpetual Protester......
Deep sigh!

At least John, you could be thorough and spell my name correctly.
Lack of attention to such simple details does not bode well for your
smart ass 'claims'.

Yes, and you are free to believe what YOU wish also. Do have a dandy
day!

  #23  
Old August 25th 07, 02:03 PM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
The One True Zhen Jue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 180
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

On Aug 24, 11:44 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...org/coleah.htm

Yes Myrl ... there are women worldwide dying of cervical, breast,
uterine, bone, brain and other cancers. That's not disputed.

Gardasil is a mutli-billion dollar unproven drug that you are hawking
here to help Merck have a net income of over $4 billion dollars this
year ...

There is a cover up of the dangers going on ... just like there has
been with breast implants ... now with your and Coleah's help on
Usenet.

You've lied and twisted the truth about me for O'leary & Barrett ...
and not you're doing the same for Merck to sell a drug that so little
is known about ... schoolgirls are being used for lab rats and are
dying and being made ill by painful diseases like Guillain Barre.

You can blame these deaths and illnesses on everything but the
Gardasil ...

Your mentor Barrett blames MCS on everything but the chemicals ...


MCS is not an organic disorder. It is a fear of chemicals, not a
physiological condition.
That is a fact borne out by replicated studies. Now deal with it!

You're Welcome!



He's dead wrong and so are you both. About many, many, many things.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...rickoleary.htm



  #24  
Old August 25th 07, 02:15 PM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Myrl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

On Aug 25, 1:09 am, "JOHN" wrote:
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message

...

www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwrote:


The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from
Merck.


Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source.


LOL




John talks about "brainwashing". . .Ilena Rosenthal is a perfect
example of a spin doctor who misrepresents events and words, to fit
her own agenda of attempting to "brainwash."

For example, I have NEVER said, "Merck is not a reliable source." I
said, "I didn't use Merck as a source."

Another example would be Ilena Rosenthal taking "incidence reports" of
adverse reactions, and "associations" with deaths, and then ADAMENTLY
painting them as the CAUSE of deaths and negative reactions to
Gardasil.


  #25  
Old August 25th 07, 03:17 PM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
bigvince
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 275
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

On Aug 24, 8:13 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:
ince Myrl Jeffcoat jumped into the Murky Merck Propaganda ... she has
made various claims about the reported deaths. Four direct quotes are
below. I fully disagree with your "simple math" claims ... neither the
true risks nor the true benefits are known ...

www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwrote:
The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from Merck.


Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source.

You keep mentioning "9" deaths linked to Gardasil in the United
States.

The VAERS base lists seven ...http://tinyurl.com/27umst

Please cite your "reliable sources" regarding the other reported two
deaths in the United States.

Thank you. Below are 3 confusing quotes direct from Myrl's confusing
postings.

http://groups.google.co.cr/group/mis...e_thread/threa...

Myrl Jeffcoat Speak :
"Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9
from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint
lipstick on your pig?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Myrl Speaketh Again:
Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from
Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year.

250,000 - 9 = 249,991

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MyrlSpeak:
She's so focused on bashing the idea that a
vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is
reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives
saved!


Lets correct the math
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Aug 24 - A prophylactic vaccine against
human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 has the potential for
preventing at least half the cases of invasive cervical cancer and
high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions worldwide, investigators
report in the August 1st issue of the International Journal of
Cancer.

Dr. Jennifer S. Smith, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of HPV type
distribution worldwide in 14,595 cases of invasive cervical cancer
(ICC) and 7,094 cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions
(HSIL).'" and she found... " The HPV 16/18 prevalence was 52% in
HSIL." HSIL is the best surrogate for cancer.

Corrected amount 125,000 lives possibly saved
In US 1500 a year in Canada 200 maximum possible.
Has that reduction been proven .No .So far the studies show a no
decrease in stage 3 lesions the best surrogate for cancer and a 17%
reduction in stage 2 lesions . So the best marker stage 3 lesions has
not been decreased . How effective is it? Could it reduce cancer rates
by 40%? Maybe. ; could it have no effect absolutely.
One thing is sure its risk and benefit ratio is unproven. That's why
many Doctors with no vested interest have urged that it not be
mandated. One things for sure it will be expensive

Thanks Vince

  #26  
Old August 25th 07, 04:52 PM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Coleah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

On Aug 25, 9:17 am, bigvince wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:13 pm, Ilena Rose wrote:





ince Myrl Jeffcoat jumped into the Murky Merck Propaganda ... she has
made various claims about the reported deaths. Four direct quotes are
below. I fully disagree with your "simple math" claims ... neither the
true risks nor the true benefits are known ...


www.BreastimplantAwareness.org/myrl.htmlwrote:
The information I have gathered has come from reliable sources. Not from Merck.


Thank you for admitting that Merck is not a reliable source.


You keep mentioning "9" deaths linked to Gardasil in the United
States.


The VAERS base lists seven ...http://tinyurl.com/27umst


Please cite your "reliable sources" regarding the other reported two
deaths in the United States.


Thank you. Below are 3 confusing quotes direct from Myrl's confusing
postings.


http://groups.google.co.cr/group/mis...e_thread/threa...


Myrl Jeffcoat Speak :
"Are you having issues with a sum-total that comes from subtracting 9
from 250,000?. . .Or is it that it makes it more difficult to paint
lipstick on your pig?"


~~~~~~~~~~~~


Myrl Speaketh Again:
Again folks!. . .There are reports of 9 "possible" deaths from
Gardasil. 250,000 die from Cervical Cancer each year.


250,000 - 9 = 249,991


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


MyrlSpeak:
She's so focused on bashing the idea that a
vaccine may prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, that she is
reluctant to do the math. . .250,000 - 7 = 243,000 possible lives
saved!


Lets correct the math
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Aug 24 - A prophylactic vaccine against
human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 has the potential for
preventing at least half the cases of invasive cervical cancer and
high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions worldwide, investigators
report in the August 1st issue of the International Journal of
Cancer.

Dr. Jennifer S. Smith, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of HPV type
distribution worldwide in 14,595 cases of invasive cervical cancer
(ICC) and 7,094 cases of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions
(HSIL).'" and she found... " The HPV 16/18 prevalence was 52% in
HSIL." HSIL is the best surrogate for cancer.

Corrected amount 125,000 lives possibly saved
In US 1500 a year in Canada 200 maximum possible.
Has that reduction been proven .No .So far the studies show a no
decrease in stage 3 lesions the best surrogate for cancer and a 17%
reduction in stage 2 lesions . So the best marker stage 3 lesions has
not been decreased . How effective is it? Could it reduce cancer rates
by 40%? Maybe. ; could it have no effect absolutely.
One thing is sure its risk and benefit ratio is unproven. That's why
many Doctors with no vested interest have urged that it not be
mandated. One things for sure it will be expensive

Thanks Vince- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I'm a bit confused. The vaccine is intended as a preventative measure
before females become sexually active. It is not supposed to be a
cure for pre-existing lesions. So I don't get the emphasis on
'reductions of different stage lesions'.

  #27  
Old August 25th 07, 07:21 PM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Ilena Rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

In a very, very rare moment of honesty, Gardasil Promoter / Apologist
Coleah Penley Ayers declares:
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/

I'm a bit confused.


The vaccine is intended as a preventative measure before females become sexually active. It is not supposed to be a cure for pre-existing lesions. So I don't get the emphasis on 'reductions of different stage lesions'.


She however, is as usual, vastly UNDER stating her confusion.
Confusion is the devil's tool ... one she uses frequently as a usenet
flack.

True, the drug is "intended" to be preventative ... however, what is
not known is the effect it will have short term on those already
infected. Merck is marketing to women up to 26 ... probably most not
"pre-sexually active."

Further, it is not known how long it even works when it does work ...
and how many "boosters" will be required.

The accumulation of aluminum (each jab has 225 mcg of aluminum
adjuvant) has NOT been addressed and although Coleah disinforms the
public that there are no dangers with this accumulation ... it's just
more propaganda she spreads.

Minimizing the risks is an important disinformation scheme ... and
Coleah barks it precisely:

"So what is the big scary point? "

Plenty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/hydro/al.htm

Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil
injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant)
http://tinyurl.com/2enev2

There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of
aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their
published results.

Info on that is he
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm

To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf

And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf

There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school
begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before
submitting their youngsters as lab rats.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com
  #28  
Old August 25th 07, 08:17 PM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Jeff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,321
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Serieson the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

Ilena Rose wrote:
In a very, very rare moment of honesty, Gardasil Promoter / Apologist
Coleah Penley Ayers declares:
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/

I'm a bit confused.


The vaccine is intended as a preventative measure before females become sexually active. It is not supposed to be a cure for pre-existing lesions. So I don't get the emphasis on 'reductions of different stage lesions'.


She however, is as usual, vastly UNDER stating her confusion.


I have not seen any signs that Coleah is confused.

Confusion is the devil's tool ... one she uses frequently as a usenet
flack.


Pot, meet kettle.

True, the drug is "intended" to be preventative ... however, what is
not known is the effect it will have short term on those already
infected. Merck is marketing to women up to 26 ... probably most not
"pre-sexually active."


The vaccine was studied in women who were already infected with HPV.
When the studies looking at the efficacy of the vaccine were done, the
girls and young women were tested to see if they were already positive
for any of the strains of HPV that were in the vaccine. Some of them
were. There was no mention of any more adverse reactions in these young
women compared to those who had not previously been exposed to HPV.
There is no reason to believe that previous exposure to HPV puts any
women at risk from the vaccine.

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf

Further, it is not known how long it even works when it does work ...
and how many "boosters" will be required.


It is known that the vaccine provides protection for at least five years.

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf

The accumulation of aluminum (each jab has 225 mcg of aluminum
adjuvant) has NOT been addressed and although Coleah disinforms the
public that there are no dangers with this accumulation ... it's just
more propaganda she spreads.


Please cite some good references that show that 1) the 0.225 mg of
aluminum in the vaccine actually accumulate in the body, rather than be
excreted; and 2) that this accumulation is harmful.

Minimizing the risks is an important disinformation scheme ... and
Coleah barks it precisely:


Maximizing the risks of vaccines is an important disinformation scheme.
You bark it so well.

"So what is the big scary point? "

Plenty.


You're right. Confusion is the devil's tool. And you wield it well, too.

The correct answer to the question: "So what is the big scary point?" is
that young and middle-aged ladies will die of a preventable disease.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/hydro/al.htm

Here is a list of over 2500 adverse reports made after Gardasil
injections (each containing 225 mcg of aluminum adjuvant)
http://tinyurl.com/2enev2


The vast majority of which are things like swelling and soreness at the
injection site.

There are also marked lapses in the information about Merck's use of
aluminum adjuvant in its 'placebo' that might have skewed their
published results.


The use of aluminum adjuvant in its placebo groups was mentioned he
http://cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf. The CDC was obviously well aware
of it and took it into account.

Info on that is he
http://www.909shot.com/PressReleases...06gardasil.htm

To view the VAERS list of over 1660 "side effects" ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...ERSReports.pdf


You mean, adverse events. The adverse events are bad things that happen
after the vaccine was given. It does not mean that they are caused by
the vaccine. Another example of the confusion, which you call the tool
of the devil.

And here the listing of the first 3 reported deaths ...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive...AERSDeaths.pdf


None of which are necessarily related to the vaccine. In fact, I can
help but wonder if two of the reports are concerning the same person.

There are far more unknowns than knowns about this drug, and as school
begins in the next month, parents need to become more informed before
submitting their youngsters as lab rats.


Gee, more propaganda and confusion. The tool of devil.

Jeff

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/
http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

  #29  
Old August 25th 07, 10:20 PM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Vernono O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

The government is made up of nattering women no matter what their sex.


  #30  
Old August 26th 07, 12:50 AM posted to alt.support.breast-implant,misc.health.alternative,talk.politics.medicine,ca.politics,misc.kids.health
Ilena Rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,139
Default Women in Government, Merck's Trojan Horse: Part Three in a Series on the Politics and PR of Cervical Cancer

The study which Jeff P Utz cites admits that Merck Research
Laboratories, a division of Merck & Co., Inc., funded this study in
its entirety.

It seems that after Utz was UNABLE to get an unrestricted medical
license after several years of a restricted one ... he found his niche
as one of the many Vac Industry promoters on Usenet.


Merck has a history of skewing data and hiding negative consequences
of their drugs ... and I have every reason to believe, as the risks
are unfolding ... that they followed their pattern of buying science
as they did with Vioxx.

The Vioxx scandal: damning Senate testimony reveals drug company,
government complicity
By Joseph Kay
22 November 2004


Several scientists testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on
November 17 provided substantial evidence that the drug company Merck
and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew of safety problems
years before the drug Vioxx was withdrawn from the market.

Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis and severe pain, was
withdrawn by Merck on September 30 after conclusive evidence emerged
that it greatly increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Some
80 million prescriptions of the drug have been filled around the
world, most of them in the US, since it was approved in May 1999.

The principal testimony was given by Dr. David Graham, the associate
director for science and medicine at the FDA’s own Office of Drug
Safety. The ODS, responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs
already on the market, is part of the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER), which also includes the Office of New Drugs (OND),
responsible for approving new drugs for the market. Graham explained
how he came into repeated conflict with the OND as he sought to raise
concerns about the safety of Vioxx.

The OND is one of the branches of the FDA that is most closely tied to
the giant drug companies it is nominally responsible for regulating.
Since passage of the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the office
gets much of its funding directly from drug companies, in the form of
new drug application fees of more than $500,000 per application. Most
of this money goes toward speeding up the approval of new drugs.

Graham explained that the OND, which has a higher position in the FDA
hierarchy than his ODS, is generally very reluctant to issue new
regulations for drugs already on the market or order mandatory
withdrawals of unsafe drugs that the office has approved. In the case
of Vioxx, the drug was pulled from the market only after its producer,
Merck, decided that the evidence of harmful consequences was
overwhelming. It was not withdrawn as a result of any regulatory
action by the FDA.

A study led by Graham that was concluded in the summer of 2004 found
that Vioxx was responsible for an estimated 38,000 excess heart
attacks and sudden cardiac deaths. In his testimony, Graham stated
that this was a conservative estimate. He said that “a more realistic
and likely range of estimates for the number of excess cases in the
US” was between 88,000 and 139,000. “Of these,” he added, “30-40
percent probably died. For the survivors, their lives were changed
forever.”

To dramatize the number of people affected, Graham noted that “this
range of 88,000 to 138,000 would be the rough equivalent of 500 to 900
aircraft dropping from the sky. This translates to 2-4 aircraft every
week, week in and week out, for the past five years.”

Graham testified that as his team concluded its study and prepared to
present its results, it was attacked by the Office of New Drugs and
other sections of the FDA. “I was pressured to change my conclusions
and recommendations, and basically threatened that if I did not change
them, I would not be permitted to present” the paper reporting his
study’s conclusions. “An email from the director for the entire Office
of New Drugs was revealing. He suggested that since FDA was ‘not
contemplating’ a warning against the use of high-dose Vioxx, my
conclusions should be changed.”

Up to a week before the drug was pulled from the market by Merck, FDA
management, according to Graham, was attempting to undermine Graham’s
conclusions.

Graham said, “[W]e are virtually defenseless” against another
catastrophe on the scale of Vioxx. “The organization structure within
CDER is entirely geared towards the review and approval of new drugs.
When a CDER new drug reviewing division approves a new drug, it is
also saying the drug is ‘safe and effective.’ When a serious safety
issue arises post-marketing, their immediate reaction is almost always
one of denial, rejection and heat.... At the same time, the Office of
Drug Safety has no regulatory power and must first convince the new
drug reviewing division that a problem exists before anything
beneficial to the public can be done.”

The prevailing sentiment at the FDA, said Graham, is one that views
“the pharmaceutical industry it is supposed to regulate as its client,
over-values the benefits of the dugs it approves, and seriously
under-values, disregards and disrespects drug safety.” When it comes
to drug safety, he said, the operating principle is that the drug is
safe unless it is proven to be unsafe beyond a shadow of a doubt. New
drugs, including Vioxx, are pushed through the approval phase in a
matter of months, before sufficient tests are done to ensure their
safety. Independent clinical testing is rarely carried out by the FDA,
and indications of safety problems are ignored or deliberately
undermined.

Later, Graham pointed to five drugs currently on the market that he
felt were potentially dangerous: Acutane, which is used to treat acne;
Bextra, a painkiller; Crestor, used to lower cholesterol; Meridia,
used to treat weight loss; and Serevent, used to treat asthma. All of
these can cause dangerous side effects and have not been adequately
tested for their safety, Graham asserted.

Others providing testimony included Gurkirpal Singh, from the Stanford
University School of Medicine, and Bruce Psaty, co-director of the
Cardiovascular Health Research Unit at the University of Washington.
The two scientists reviewed some of the history of the testing of
Vioxx and concluded that, even with the limited data available, the
drug should have been pulled from the market well before it was
eventually withdrawn.

Singh noted that there was evidence of serious heart problems
associated with Vioxx before it was approved in 1999. “In 1998, Dr.
Doug Watson, a Merck scientist, presented an analysis of serious heart
problems with Vioxx compared to patients enrolled in studies of other
Merck drugs. This analysis concluded that men taking Vioxx had a 28
percent greater risk (not statistically significant), but in women,
the risk was more than double (216 percent, statistically significant)
compared to people not taking any drug in other Merck studies. To the
best of my knowledge, these data were never made public.”

Merck has continually asserted that at the time of Vioxx’s approval,
no evidence existed indicating that the drug caused additional heart
attacks. The main study carried out by Merck, known as VIGOR, showed a
fivefold increase in serious heart conditions relative to another
drug, naproxen (the generic form of Aleve). Merck explained these
results as a consequence of naproxen’s beneficial effects, rather than
Vioxx’s harmful ones. However, in 1999 a scientist at the FDA remarked
that “thromboembolic events [such as heart attack and stroke] are more
frequent in patients receiving Vioxx than placebo.” Singh noted, “This
meant that not only did Vioxx not [have the benefits of naproxen], but
for some reason, it was likely to promote heart attacks directly.”

The evidence was still limited, Singh said. “There were not adequate
data to make a firm conclusion one way or another. In fact, the FDA
reviewer went on to point out that ‘[w]ith the available data, it is
impossible to answer with complete certainty whether the risk of
cardiovascular and thromboembolic events is increased in patients on
rofecoxib [Vioxx]. A large database will be needed to answer this and
other safety comparison questions.’ ”

Instead of carrying out a larger study, the FDA quickly approved the
drug for use. This was in spite of the fact that the drug served no
pressing necessity. There were already drugs on the market that
performed the same function as Vioxx: to relieve inflammation without
causing stomach problems. The FDA did not even require a caution on
the drug’s label about the increased risk of hear attacks until April
2002.

Nor did Merck attempt a larger study. The New York Times reported on
November 14 that such a study was contemplated in May 2000, but
management rejected the idea. According to the Times, a slide prepared
for an executives’ meeting stated, “At present, there is no compelling
marketing need for such a study.... The implied message is not
favorable.”

In their defense, Sandra Kweder, the deputy director of the Office of
New Drugs, and Raymond Gilmartin, chairman and CEO of Merck, simply
repeated the claim that everything was done to determine the safety of
Vioxx as quickly as possible, and that the drug was immediately
withdrawn as soon as safety problems became evident. The overwhelming
evidence indicates the opposite: that tens of thousands of deaths
likely caused by use of Vioxx were entirely preventable.

See Also:
The Vioxx recall: cover-up of health risks may have resulted in
thousands of deaths
[10 November 2004]
Medicine and the market: the Vioxx and flu vaccine debacles
[8 October 2004]

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Family claims cervical-cancer vaccine caused paralysis bigvince General 0 May 19th 07 08:23 PM
Family claims cervical-cancer vaccine caused paralysis [email protected] Kids Health 0 May 18th 07 07:17 PM
Family claims cervical-cancer vaccine caused paralysis [email protected] Breastfeeding 0 May 18th 07 07:17 PM
Human Papiloma Virus may not be the Cause of Cervical Cancer JOHN Kids Health 3 March 22nd 07 12:56 AM
The Abraham Cherrix cancer story the media won't print: Harry Hoxsey's cancer cures and the US government campaign to destroy them Ilena Rose Kids Health 45 August 8th 06 07:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.