Medical Forum / General / Alternative / November 2004
Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Roman Bystrianyk - 05 Nov 2004 02:28 GMT http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=374
Tom Armitage, "Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study", Reuters UK, November 5, 2004, Link: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6721666§i on=news
U.S. drugs giant Merck & Co Inc. should have pulled its Vioxx painkiller from the market four years ago, because data showing it raised the risk of heart attacks has existed since 2000, Swiss scientists said on Friday.
In a report for British medical journal The Lancet, researchers at the University of Berne said there was substantial evidence of the dangerous side effects of the drug by the end of 2000, but the mounting data was not analyzed properly.
"Our findings indicate that rofecoxib (Vioxx) should have been withdrawn several years earlier," the scientists said.
Merck did not recall Vioxx, a COX-2 inhibitor taken by about 20 million Americans, from the worldwide market until five weeks ago.
"The company could and should have made the statement several years back, when the data we analyzed were readily available," Matthias Egger, a professor at the university's department for Social and Preventative Medicine, told a news conference.
The Swiss research follows newspaper reports earlier this week that Merck had tried to fight mounting concerns about the drug's safety in order to protect sales.
No one was immediately available at Merck to comment on the findings.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a study estimating that Vioxx could have caused about 28,000 heart attacks or deaths since it was approved in 1999.
Merck's shares have slumped around 40 percent since the recall, and analysts estimate that it could face a bill of between $10 billion and $15 billion in litigation.
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
The Swiss scientists performed a meta-analysis on the data, taking in results from past studies, some of which were available on the FDA Web Site. They found that patients who took Vioxx were at greater risk even after a few months, regardless of how much of the drug was taken.
Using 18 randomized controlled trials and 11 observational studies, researchers saw that heart-attack risk more than doubled when Vioxx was taken.
By the end of 2000, 52 heart attacks had occurred in 20,742 patients, the researchers said. Of these, 41 were patients using Vioxx. The increased heart-attack risks became apparent in studies which were evaluated by external watchdogs.
"It could be that without independent evaluation of the data, the assessment of adverse effects is biased so that the risks of a drug appear smaller," Egger said.
"We therefore recommend that all studies be carried out with independent external data evaluation."
Drug licensing authorities should review their procedures, the study concluded, to ensure that data released after the drug launch is analyzed for signs of side effects.
The authors also said an independent panel of experts should investigate why manufacturers and licensing authorities did not evaluate the data available on Vioxx sooner.
In an editorial in the journal, editor Richard Horton criticized both Merck and the FDA, saying they acted out of "ruthless, short-sighted, and irresponsible self interest."
"The licensing of Vioxx and its continued use in the face of unambiguous evidence of harm have been public-health catastrophes," said Horton.
"This controversy will not end with the drug's withdrawal."
The study was part of a wider investigation into anti-inflammatory drugs and their side effects conducted by the University of Berne on behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due mid-2006.
Anth - 05 Nov 2004 18:12 GMT It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some money back from their research. Anth
> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=374 > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due > mid-2006. Mark Probert - 05 Nov 2004 18:17 GMT Actually, it is not OK for that. There should be a thorough investigastion and, if sufficient evidence is found, a criminal action should be commenced.
In NY, the homicide statue contains a part where depraved indifference to human life is condisdered to be the equivalent of intentional murder.
That works for me, with the right evidence.
> It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some money > back from their research. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > UK, November 5, 2004, > > Link: http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=6721666§i on=news
> > U.S. drugs giant Merck & Co Inc. should have pulled its Vioxx > > painkiller from the market four years ago, because data showing it [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due > > mid-2006. firechief - 05 Nov 2004 19:13 GMT > In NY, the homicide statue contains a part where depraved > indifference to human life is condisdered to be the equivalent > of intentional murder. In California, while describing the elements of a crime, neglect to perform a requred duty is the same as intent, as when running a stop sign/red light or speeding without realizing it.
Rick James-Drew - 05 Nov 2004 19:38 GMT >Actually, it is not OK for that. There should be a thorough investigastion >and, if sufficient evidence is found, a criminal action should be commenced. > >In NY, the homicide statue contains a part where depraved indifference to >human life is condisdered to be the equivalent of intentional murder. From: "Anth" spam@spam.com Date: 10/24/2004 11:53 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <417c0822$0$108$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net>
<snip for brevity>
I spend my days throwing darts at pictures of you, and plotting to kill you.
>That works for me, with the right evidence. From: "Anth" spam@spam.com Date: 10/24/2004 11:53 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <417c0822$0$108$65c69314@mercury.nildram.net> --------------------------
Yes, as seen above, that evidence is in the Ever-Loving Google Archive. Very interesting how you see yourself, Anth.
>> It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some >money >> back from their research. >> Anth Anth - 06 Nov 2004 15:54 GMT I see you have a little dummy to suck, enjoy. Anth
> >Actually, it is not OK for that. There should be a thorough > >investigastion [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>> back from their research. >>> Anth Anth - 06 Nov 2004 15:53 GMT The thing is though this kind of behavious is happening all the time, it is how they work. The play down risks, exclude evidence from reports etc and they have too much control. They are not worth trusting imo, their game plan says money is their no#1 motive people's health ranks later. Anth
> Actually, it is not OK for that. There should be a thorough investigastion > and, if sufficient evidence is found, a criminal action should be [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] >> > behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due >> > mid-2006. Mark - 06 Nov 2004 14:05 GMT > It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some money > back from their research. > Anth No it's not. Don't be a twit.
More evidence seems to be coming to light that there were known problems with Vioxx at least four years ago. If these concerns bear out, if it comes to light that Merck knew of risks they weren't publicly declaring, then the higher-ups at Merck ought to face criminal charges.
Mark, MD
Anth - 06 Nov 2004 15:56 GMT From past history, the cost of a fine has been very litle in comparison to the amount of profits these people have been making. Anth
>> It's ok they can get a little 'slap on the wrist', and still make some >> money [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Mark, MD Harvey R. Stone - 06 Nov 2004 16:47 GMT > From past history, the cost of a fine has been very litle in comparison to > the amount of profits these people have been making. > Anth How much profit a company makes is none of your affair. Your opinion of it changes nothing and only shows ignorance of how business actually works and brings products to market. Harv
Anth - 06 Nov 2004 16:55 GMT Yes it is my affair when my health is at stake because of their treatments. Anth
>> From past history, the cost of a fine has been very litle in comparison >> to the amount of profits these people have been making. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and brings products to market. > Harv Harvey R. Stone - 06 Nov 2004 20:38 GMT > Yes it is my affair when my health is at stake because of their > treatments. > Anth
:-) I commented on your statement of their profit which you are to stupid to realize or understand. Dig a little deeper Anth. Expand you mind just a little. Harv
Anth - 06 Nov 2004 21:27 GMT How am I too stupid? Have you actually sat down and read about how these companies operate? Are you aware of the vitamin cartels? Anth
>> Yes it is my affair when my health is at stake because of their >> treatments. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just a little. > Harv Rick James-Drew - 07 Nov 2004 01:44 GMT >How am I too stupid? In all matters dealing with reason, logic, and common sense.
>Have you actually sat down and read about how these companies operate? Some of us understand business, economics, and the healthcare industry. Sadly, Anth looks to conspiracy tirades, rants, and urban legends to form his world view.
>Are you aware of the vitamin cartels? Are you aware that your Aluminum turban is too tight?
>Anth > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> just a little. >> Harv Harvey R. Stone - 07 Nov 2004 13:45 GMT > How am I too stupid? > Have you actually sat down and read about how these companies operate? > Are you aware of the vitamin cartels? > Anth I wonder if you realize that you read like a troll. You seem to have a big agenda you need to push or show the world. This is my last post with you. Harv
Anth - 07 Nov 2004 14:36 GMT Suit yourself, however http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=3B58339C.889748D6%40swbell.net &rnum=18&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dharvey%2Br.%2Bstone%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%2 6selm%3D3B58339C.889748D6%2540swbell.net%26rnum%3D18
I suspect you have conflicting interests, perhaps this is why you commented on my posting about pharma companies. Anth
>> How am I too stupid? >> Have you actually sat down and read about how these companies operate? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you. > Harv Jan - 07 Nov 2004 21:51 GMT >Subject: Re: Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study >From: "Anth" spam@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=3B58339C.889748D6%40swbell.net &rnum=18&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dharvey%2Br.%2Bstone%26start%3D10%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26selm%3D3B58339C.889748D6%2540swbell.net%26rnum%3D18
>I suspect you have conflicting interests, perhaps this is why you commented >on my posting about pharma companies. >Anth B I N G O!!!!
I suspect this of most of the *gang*.
Jan
BTW all corruption comes from Satan and the love of money.
Katherine Wolfe - 08 Nov 2004 06:55 GMT > How am I too stupid? > Have you actually sat down and read about how these companies operate? > Are you aware of the vitamin cartels? Okay, I'll bite - what's a 'vitamin cartel'?
Katherine
Rick James-Drew - 07 Nov 2004 01:42 GMT >> Yes it is my affair when my health is at stake because of their >> treatments. Anth does not take Vioxx. Cue Anth to ignore this ridiculous and hypocritical concern for Vioxx being "unsafe". He promotes the use of Laetril which ONLY does harm, yet condemns Vioxx which has done far more good than harm.
Sad, that.
>> Anth > >:-) I commented on your statement of their profit which you are to stupid to >realize or understand. Dig a little deeper Anth. Expand you mind just a >little. Anth recently proved his ignorance of economics. Subsequently, he replicated his proof, and re-proved it again. Add to that a heaping dose of class envy and Vit-A-Min C induced explosive diarrhea.
Sad, Anth.
>Harv Anth - 07 Nov 2004 07:21 GMT I've never promoted the use of Laetrile, I have debated it, I suggest you retract your lie. Also Laetrile is many times less toxic than aspirin, it is the FDA which lies. Anth
>>> Yes it is my affair when my health is at stake because of their >>> treatments. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >>Harv Jan - 07 Nov 2004 01:58 GMT >From: "Harvey R. Stone"
>you are to stupid to >realize or understand. ZZzz
Jan - 07 Nov 2004 01:57 GMT >Subject: Re: Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study >From: "Harvey R. Stone" hrstone@swbell..net [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >How much profit a company makes is none of your affair Wrong. Merck is a drug company.
What they do is EVERYONE'S business.
Mark Probert - 07 Nov 2004 15:26 GMT Who is talking about a fine? I am not. I am talking serious behind the bars time. NY sentences for 25 to life.
If criminal activity is found, then this is a golden opportunity to make an example of someone. Have you noticed that there have been damn few corporate scandals since the Enron crooks went to jail?
Anti-medis, like you, are so focused on the money that the pharmaceutical companies make, you are blinded by it.
> From past history, the cost of a fine has been very litle in comparison to > the amount of profits these people have been making. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > Mark, MD Anth - 07 Nov 2004 15:43 GMT They make huge profits out of the people, would you not agree that their therapies should be cheaper? I don't believe they will go behind bars, I think they will get a slap on the wrist fine. Anth
> Who is talking about a fine? I am not. I am talking serious behind the > bars [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> > >> > Mark, MD Mark Probert - 07 Nov 2004 15:55 GMT > They make huge profits out of the people, would you not agree that their > therapies should be cheaper? I have no knowledge of how the prices are derived. If they are rationally based, then so be it.
Do you know how they are dervied, or, are you just lashing out because they cost money?
> I don't believe they will go behind bars, I think they will get a slap on > the wrist fine. Believe what you want. Time will tell.
> Anth > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >> > > >> > Mark, MD Anth - 07 Nov 2004 16:08 GMT >> They make huge profits out of the people, would you not agree that their >> therapies should be cheaper? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they > cost money? Well I know that when I see drugs in Europe cheaper than they are in the US, made from the same companies then something is up! They could import them from Europe and still sell them cheaper.
>> I don't believe they will go behind bars, I think they will get a slap on >> the wrist fine. > > Believe what you want. Time will tell. Let's hope they get their bars and a slap on the wrist. Anth
>> Anth >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> >> > >> >> > Mark, MD Mark Probert - 07 Nov 2004 16:13 GMT > >> They make huge profits out of the people, would you not agree that their > >> therapies should be cheaper? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Let's hope they get their bars and a slap on the wrist. Methinks that it will not be the wrist that is being slapped. Send them all bars of soap.
> Anth > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> > Mark, MD Jan - 07 Nov 2004 22:23 GMT >Subject: Re: Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study >From: "Anth" spam@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> I have no knowledge of how the prices are derived. If they are rationally >> based, then so be it. Proof the *gang* are a group of liars.
(BTW, I see no replies to this, wonder why??)
BUSTED AGAIN!
A repost:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/60minutes/main605700.shtml
Prescriptions And Profit
Aug. 22, 2004
Prescription Drugs
American drug prices are the highest in the world. (Photo: AP / CBS)
"This is a perfect example, in my opinion, of where a special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, has been able to manipulate the Congress and the government of the United States to their benefit..." Rep. Dan Burton
Dr. Marcia Angell was executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for 11 years. (Photo: CBS)
(CBS) There are two recent developments in the continuing battle over the price of prescription drugs: Illinois announced it will help its residents buy drugs from Canada, and Vermont announced it's going to sue the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the right of its citizens to buy drugs in Canada.
It may come as no surprise that the pharmaceutical industry is the most profitable business in the country. American drug prices are the highest in the world, so more than a million Americans now buy their medications in Canada.
Mayors and governors from North Dakota to Alabama are helping their citizens get Canadian drugs by mail. Such purchases are technically illegal, but so far, the federal government has declined to prosecute.
But the FDA has raised the specter of safety and has been waging a campaign against Canadian importation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ When Correspondent Morley Safer first reported on this story last March, the FDA commissioner was Dr. Mark McClellan.
The FDA has issued a serious warning that using Canadian drugs could be unsafe. But how unsafe are these drugs? And how common are the problems for drugs that people are buying in Canada?
“Well, that's the problem. We don’t know,” says Dr. McClellan. “Because we don't have the authority to tell where these drugs have come from, or to monitor closely how they're getting into the United States. And to make sure that the drugs that come in are safe, it could be a widespread problem.”
“That's a lot of hooey. There is no reason that buying drugs in Canada is any less safe than buying them in the United States,” says Dr. Marcia Angell, who was executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for 11 years. She’s just published a book called "The Truth About the Drug Companies."
“The people who say you have to worry about the safety of drugs from Canada are imagining the way it was in the old days. That there's a moat around the United States that drugs that are sold in the United States are made by only American companies. And made in this country,” says Angell.
“It's not that way any more. Pfizer, for example, has 60 manufacturing sites in 32 countries. So the drugs are made all over the world. They're sold all over the world.”
Most of Pfizer's anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor is made in Ireland. And it's the same Lipitor that's sold in both U.S. and Canadian pharmacies. Other familiar drugs like Zocor, Nexium, and Prevacid are the same as the ones sold in Canada. They're much cheaper there because the drug companies must abide by Canadian government price controls.
Do the drug companies still make a profit?
“Oh, sure. Why else would they sell them in Canada? They're not charities. Of course they make a profit,” says Angell. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ *****The United States is the only industrialized country without some form of control on the prices of drugs. The U.S. also accounts for more than half of the industry's profits. *******
In order to keep those profits up, the drug companies have joined the FDA in trying to shut down imports from Canada, and Canadian pharmacies are feeling the pressure. In one pharmacy just over the border, Americans account for 30 percent of its business. They were nervous about having 60 Minutes mention the actual name of the pharmacy.
“We've had several letters from the big multi-nationals, certainly threatening to cut off the drug supply very explicitly if you are supplying medications to U.S. patients,” says the pharmacist.
This pharmacy supplies drugs to municipal workers in the city of Springfield, Mass., through a program set up by former Springfield Mayor Michael Albano.
“Major pharmaceutical companies are saying, ‘We're going to limit our supply.’ What does that tell you? It tells you that they want to keep the artificially high prices in America,” says Albano. “How brazen is that? It just boggles my mind that they can get away with this.”
When Albano was faced with a budget crunch last year, he had to lay off firefighters, police officers, and teachers. By arranging for 3,000 city employees, retirees, and family members to buy Canadian drugs, the city can make substantial savings.
“We can save anywhere from $4 to $9 million on an annual basis if I get everybody enrolled and everybody goes to Canada. And that's a huge amount of money right now,” says Albano. “If I can save $9 million for my city and put it back, redirect it back into police and fire and to public education, it'll make a world of difference. So it's a huge savings.”
Does he do it himself?
“I do it for my family's use. My son Mikey is diabetic. And we get his insulin and related products for diabetes from Canada,” says Albano.
The FDA says importing drugs from Canada or buying drugs from Canada is unsafe. Does Albano agree?
“The American public is not buying that safety issue. The fact is that it is getting insulting for the FDA to say that. I view myself as a responsible father,” says Albano. “And I could tell you that I would not let my son inject insulin into his body three times a day if I thought there was a safety factor here.”
Mayor Albano concedes that casually buying drugs on the Internet could be risky, but says it was quite simple for him to check out his Canadian supplier, and challenges the FDA to do the same thing.
“The FDA has become a pawn of the pharmaceutical industry, that they are protecting those high profit margins. If the FDA wanted to put a plan together similar to what we're doing in Springfield, that would be good for all Americans, they can do it in 15 minutes, relative to safety,” says Albano.
“We get all our medications from certified, regulated pharmacies in Canada. It's no different than going to your neighborhood pharmacy. And it's the exact same medication.”
So why can’t the FDA insure the safety of products from Canadian pharmaceutical exporters – and make sure that it’s as safe as any product leaving an American company?
“Under current law, we don't have the authority to insure the safety of foreign produced, foreign distributed drugs,” says McClellan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ So what would motivate the FDA, which is not in the business of profiting from drugs, to put out an alarm about Canadian drugs?
“The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on our government is huge. And the FDA is a part of the executive branch of the government. And this is just the propaganda that's put out to do the drug company's bidding, to make sure that Americans don't have access to cheaper drugs,” says Angell.
“Because then they'll come to know what's going on. And what's going on is that these drugs, while they're made by global companies all over the world, are sold in this country for about double what they're sold for everywhere else. And that they wanna keep secret.”
“Our interest is in protecting and promoting the health of the public,” says McClellan.
Of course, the whole controversy over Canadian drugs would be moot if Republican Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana had his way. During the recent debate over the Medicare bill, he co-sponsored a provision that would have legalized bringing in Canadian drugs with safeguards.
But Burton says he ran into two brick walls: the drug industry and the U.S. government: “This is a perfect example, in my opinion, of where a special interest, the pharmaceutical industry, has been able to manipulate the Congress and the government of the United States to their benefit, and to the detriment of the American taxpayer and the American people.”
Since 1999, the drug industry has given more than 45 million dollars in political contributions, and it's spent hundreds of millions more on an army of more than 600 lobbyists to work its will on Capitol Hill.
Congressman Burton says the new Medicare act makes it clear the industry got its money's worth. He says billions of dollars are in it for drug companies in this new Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit.
“In the new Medicare Act, the federal government is specifically prohibited from negotiating prices with drug companies,” says Safer.
“That is unconscionable. The government of the United States negotiates prices in the Defense Department, in every area of government,” says Burton. “And here we are, going to spend billions and billions and billions and probably trillions of dollars on pharmaceutical products. And we cannot negotiate the prices with the pharmaceutical industry. That's just not right.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ In December, surrounded by members of Congress, President Bush signed the new Medicare act. Since 1999, these legislators have accepted more than a million and a half dollars in campaign contributions from people working in the pharmaceutical industry. President Bush alone has received more than half a million dollars.
But now, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is being billed as a big victory for America’s seniors.
“You gotta be kidding me,” says Burton. “Seniors, when they find out what's in that bill, are gonna be very angry. The problem is, they're not gonna find out about it until after this next election.”
The plan doesn’t start until 2006. Does Burton think that will reduce the attraction of importing drugs from Canada?
“Oh, I don't think so,” says Burton. “Because even when you talk about the discount cards and the other things, you're gonna find that seniors are gonna be paying, in many cases, more than they are paying for Canadian imports right now.”
60 Minutes contacted Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, Wyeth, Glaxo SmithKline, and Eli Lilly. None of them would agree to be interviewed. Safer asked Dr. Angell about the case the industry invariably makes to justify drug prices.
“This is a kind of blackmail. What they're saying is, ‘Don't mess with us. Let us charge whatever we want for our drugs. Otherwise, you won't get the miracles,’” says Angell. “And the truth is that they spend less in R&D then they make in profits. And far less then they spend on marketing. And they don't make that many miracles in the first place … The problem is, is that we're no longer getting our money's worth.”
Adds Albano: “The pharmaceutical industry is gouging the American consumer. There's no other conclusion one can draw. And why should we, in this country, have to pay the highest prices in the world? Why isn't the president doing something? Why isn't Congress doing something? Someone has to wage this battle. So we're prepared to do it here.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ And so are others. Since 60 Minutes first broadcast this story, at least five more cities and two states are helping people buy drugs from Canada.
As for Dr. Mark McClellan, he's now head of Medicare and Medicaid.
Mark Probert - 07 Nov 2004 22:28 GMT Interesting, but it still does not show how the companies come up with their pricing.
> >Subject: Re: Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study > >From: "Anth" spam@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > "That's a lot of hooey. There is no reason that buying drugs in Canada is any
> less safe than buying them in the United States," says Dr. Marcia Angell, who
> was executive editor of The New England Journal of Medicine for 11 years. > She's just published a book called "The Truth About the Drug Companies." > > "The people who say you have to worry about the safety of drugs from Canada
> are imagining the way it was in the old days. That there's a moat around the > United States that drugs that are sold in the United States are made by only > American companies. And made in this country," says Angell. > > "It's not that way any more. Pfizer, for example, has 60 manufacturing sites
> in 32 countries. So the drugs are made all over the world. They're sold all > over the world." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "Oh, sure. Why else would they sell them in Canada? They're not charities. Of
> course they make a profit," says Angell. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > "The American public is not buying that safety issue. The fact is that it is
> getting insulting for the FDA to say that. I view myself as a responsible > father," says Albano. "And I could tell you that I would not let my son [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "We get all our medications from certified, regulated pharmacies in Canada.
> It's no different than going to your neighborhood pharmacy. And it's the exact > same medication." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on our government is huge. And
> the FDA is a part of the executive branch of the government. And this is just > the propaganda that's put out to do the drug company's bidding, to make sure [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > "In the new Medicare Act, the federal government is specifically prohibited
> from negotiating prices with drug companies," says Safer. > > "That is unconscionable. The government of the United States negotiates > prices in the Defense Department, in every area of government," says Burton.
> "And here we are, going to spend billions and billions and billions and > probably trillions of dollars on pharmaceutical products. And we cannot [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Adds Albano: "The pharmaceutical industry is gouging the American consumer.
> There's no other conclusion one can draw. And why should we, in this country, > have to pay the highest prices in the world? Why isn't the president doing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > As for Dr. Mark McClellan, he's now head of Medicare and Medicaid. Jan - 07 Nov 2004 21:56 GMT >Subject: Re: Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study >From: "Anth" spam@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Anti-medis, like you, are so focused on the money that the pharmaceutical >> companies make, you are blinded by it. Typical of Mark.
The subject is:
>Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study When *truth* is presented, the Mark insults and diverts.
Jan
>>> From past history, the cost of a fine has been very litle in comparison >>> to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> > >>> > Mark, MD Mark Probert - 07 Nov 2004 22:27 GMT > >Subject: Re: Merck Should Have Pulled Vioxx in 2000 -Study > >From: "Anth" spam@spam.com [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > When *truth* is presented, the Mark insults and diverts. Note to Jan:
Try reading for comprehension. I am advocating that anyone at Merck who actively covered up the danger of the meds should do jail time, not just get a fine.
Now, dingbat, just what is wrong with this?
Please repost for the dingbat to read. She just loves to bash without thinking. Just like Ilena.
> >>> From past history, the cost of a fine has been very litle in comparison > >>> to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >>> > > >>> > Mark, MD Mark - 08 Nov 2004 02:16 GMT > From past history, the cost of a fine has been very litle in comparison to > the amount of profits these people have been making. > Anth No, that's why I said, "criminal charges" and not, "pay a fine".
Again, stop being a twit.
Mark, MD
George Verak - 29 Nov 2004 17:43 GMT FYI http://www.vioxxlitigator.us
> http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=374 > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > behalf of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Full results are due > mid-2006. FYI http://www.vioxxlitigator.us
|
|
|