Vioxx

Discussion in 'Odds & Ends' started by Bartelby, Nov 29, 2011.

  1. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    Graham’s data indicate that 140,000 Americans suffered Vioxx-induced heart attacks and strokes; 55,000 died, and many more were permanently disabled.
     
    #1
  2. Agent Orynge

    Agent Orynge Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,364
    Location:
    Riverside, CA
    Go on...

    10char
     
    #2
  3. mikeler

    mikeler G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    19,817
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Perhaps the thread title of Beware of Vioxx would be more appropriate? Who is Graham? Links please.
     
    #3
  4. r2473

    r2473 Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    7,113
    Just playing with the numbers:

    140,000 heart attacks and strokes
    55,000 deaths
    XXXXXX permanately disabled (many more than 55,000).

    So I have to assume that not all Vioxx deaths and permanent disabilities were accompanied with heart attacks and strokes?

    Otherwise your numbers don't make much sense.
     
    #4
  5. ollinger

    ollinger Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    6,139
    Vioxx pretty clearly had cardiac risks and there are better drugs available, though the numbers presented by the OP are a little misleading as it's believed Vioxx also prevented deaths from GI bleeding that would have occurred if people had been using Naprosen or Aspirin in its place. GI events are at least 3 times more common than cardiac events on these meds, and a third of those GI events are serious, sometimes fatal. So some of those on Vioxx might have died from the GI events that may have occured had they instead been on Naprosen or Aspirin, but which were rare when using the Vioxx. This data on GI issues was presented to the Senate Committee when Graham presented his findings. Graham noted that his figures on heart attack and stroke were estimates.
     
    #5
  6. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    Are you familiar with the concept of risks and benefits?
     
    #6
  7. Agent Orynge

    Agent Orynge Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    1,364
    Location:
    Riverside, CA
    The real question is how do I defend myself against a man armed with a banana?
     
    #7
  8. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    They did take it off the market and now regret ever putting it on the market, so the risks were too great for the putative benefits.



     
    #8
  9. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    Evidence that using Vioxx doubled a patient’s risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke —based on a review of 1.4 million patients’ records— was about to be published in Lancet by David Graham, MD, an FDA investigator. The FDA director’s office, devoted valet of Big PhRMA, had contacted the Lancet in a futile effort to stop publication of their own scientist’s findings.
     
    #9
  10. LuckyR

    LuckyR Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,404
    Location:
    The Great NW
    I don't dispute your comment above since it is much more informative than your OP.
     
    #10
  11. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I am! And my question to you is, who decides if you are going to take that risk?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2011
    #11
  12. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Actully, Pfizer is quite happy they put it on the market. The FDA let them keep it on the market long enough to make a big fat profit before it was "voluntarily" withdrawn.
     
    #12
  13. ollinger

    ollinger Legend

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    6,139
    ^^^ no, Pfizer is glad they put Neurontin on the market. They had to pay something like an 800 million dollar fine for falsified pain relief data, but the drug was grossing something like 3 to 5 billion a year. Vioxx was sold by Merck, not Pfizer.
     
    #13
  14. Fifth Set

    Fifth Set Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    California
    I was wondering what the real point of this thread was. Perhaps this little gem is the hint that it may not necessarily go in a rational direction.
     
    #14
  15. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    ... rhetoric would be the simpler explanation.
     
    #15
  16. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,990
    The way I see it is Pharma suppresses the bad studies then gets approval.

    Eventually people will die or be harmed, the information can also be leaked out.

    The drug is then pulled off the market and the pharma company pays a fine but ends up making a lot of money still.

    The end result is the company gets money but it costs people their lives or some type of injury and the company already knew this would happen beforehand.
    No one goes to jail.

    This looks like business as usual and because the government does little to stop it people are not outraged.

    We are lambs just following the governments lead, even as those around us die.
    Sad state of affairs.
     
    #16
  17. Fifth Set

    Fifth Set Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    California
    Wow, you have a pretty warped view of how medicine gets delivered in the U.S.

    Do your kids get immunizations that spares them the measles, pertussis, etc.? Thank big pharma.

    Do you care about anyone who has survived cancer, HIV or any other deadly disease? Thank big pharma.
     
    #17
  18. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    There's no doubt Wall Street banks sell dud investments for a billion and then take a hundred million dollar fine, and know in advance they walk away with a profit. In fact, a judge just threw out one such deal as not in the interests of justice.
     
    #18
  19. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,990
    You missed my point badly. :eek:h well:
     
    #19
  20. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You're right, it was Merck.

    But, my understanding is that the fine against Pfizer was for marketing neurontin for "off label" use (a use other than what the FDA approved it for). A doc has the discretion to prescribe a drug off label. But, a drug company can't market it off label. And the size of the fine was basically a palm greasing to Pfizer. They made out like bandits, thanks to their friends at the FDA.
     
    #20
  21. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Here's what I wrote in another thread in another section.

     
    #21
  22. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    Actually, I suspect you have a pretty warped view about how medicine gets delivered in the U.S.
     
    #22
  23. Fifth Set

    Fifth Set Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    California
    Kind of a bizarre manifesto, to be honest.

    The nutritional supplements reference especially came out of nowhere. You aren't one of those colloidal silver hawkers, are you?

    [​IMG]
     
    #23
  24. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,990
    I found this article about Vioxx, nothing new for some but others may find it interesting.

     
    #24
  25. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,590
    At the time of the fine against Pfizer in 2004, the company had already gotten approval to market for neuralgia pain two years earlier. So the false research data that led to that approval was one of the reasons the company was fined.
     
    #25
  26. Fifth Set

    Fifth Set Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    California
    Alliance for Natural Health. Hmmm....

    You supplement folks are funny. Full of skepticism and cynicism about the government and big pharma. No such critical thinking when it comes to the pushers of Zicam and Super Silver.

    Take two of these and call me in the morning.

    [​IMG]

    http://www.amazon.com/Denialism-Irrational-Thinking-Scientific-Threatens/dp/1594202303
     
    #26
  27. dlk

    dlk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Indy
    That no doubt is more important than if COX II Inhibitors increase clot formation:)

    I'm no phamacological researcher (but have a friend who retired from Eli Lilly), but I'll bet the diagnosis of osteoarthritis has a roughly 40-50% greater chance of CAD.

    I'm just impressed with all the folks who can read through so many studies and trials in order to understand the medications that are currently on the market and why:shock:
     
    #27
  28. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    I did explain that it was something I wrote in another thread in another forum area. You're going to have to employ some critical thinking skills and pick out the issues and comments that are germaine to this thread, if you have any critical thinking skills to employ.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
    #28
  29. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You're beginning to smell like a drug rep! The canned pajoratives are a dead givaway!
     
    #29
  30. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    My advice to anyone who will listen to me is that: (1) medical doctors are not qualified to prescribe drugs, they don't know how they work, or what the risks are, they don't read the package inserts, they get virtually all of their information about the drugs they prescribe from commissioned drug salesmen who have a finanical interest in bribing doctors to sell their brand, and the few that do actually read package inserts, don't have enough respect for their patients to share the information they have in order to obtain their patients' informed consent before prescribing a drug, and (2) You have to be an informed medical consumer. Do not allow a doctor to make any medical decisions for you. Further, if you have not read and taken the time to understand the package insert of a drug that a doctor has prescribed for you, then just don't take it. The risk of taking a drug outweighs the risk of not taking it almost every time.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2011
    #30
  31. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,990
    I'm trying to upgrade your knowledge base.

    Because I posted it doesn't mean I agree in whole, it's just information.

    What do you see wrong or right with it?
     
    #31
  32. Fifth Set

    Fifth Set Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    California
    Thankfully, most people are not listening to you. If they were, U.S. life expectancy would still be about 45!
     
    #32
  33. dlk

    dlk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Indy
    Fortunately for me, I 've seen more than enough physicians who can and do presrcible the right dose, at the right time, at right quantitiy, for the right reasons. I may not want them changing my oil, but they're okay on my tennis team, except when their own. Limphitter, I like to know your background, where you can believe in such statements like "taking a drug outweighs the risk of not taking it almost every time."

    Your heart has stopped & I throw a Zoll defibrillator on your lifeless body, the EKG suggests Torsades, the Mag I'm gonna give you can only help (99%) of the time . Is this the "almost every time" occaision?
     
    #33
  34. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    The silence is deafening isn't it!
     
    #34
  35. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You're a drug rep! Not only do you know nothing about nutrition, you know nothing about the dangers and limitations of allopathic medicine. Why would you? You're a trained parrot. Wait, that would make you a medical doctor!
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2011
    #35
  36. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    You're not thinking clearly. Torsedes de Pointes is a lethal condition justifying drastic intervention. So what? On its own, your example is inapposite to the discussion! Are you aware that there are FDA approved drugs that can induce tdp? Do you know which ones they are? Do you think your doctors know? Are you aware that in the U.S. medical care, as a whole, is the third leading cause of death, behind only heart attacks (both congestive and arrhythmic), and cancer?
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2011
    #36
  37. dlk

    dlk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Indy
    Whew, somebody's a little bitter and smarter than everyone else:shock:
     
    #37
  38. Fifth Set

    Fifth Set Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    860
    Location:
    California
    I don't take being called a medical doctor as an insult - more twilight zone stuff.

    If this thread is going to go somewhere more interesting than your name calling, I will actually give you the floor to take it there with this question.

    Since we can only assume that you are an advocate of either homeopathy or spiritual healing, can you provide links to professionally conducted clinical studies providing the efficacy of any of these offerings? This should be easy since you apparently consider them to be superior to those of conventional medicine.
     
    #38
  39. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,937
    Ask Theo Colburn.
     
    #39
  40. dlk

    dlk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Indy
    Or Ian C. Read:)
     
    #40
  41. Limpinhitter

    Limpinhitter Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    9,277
    This thread has gone somewhere interesting. An uninformed, misinformed, malinformed, drug rep, who makes a living bribing doctors to switch their patients to his brand of unsafe and largely ineffective drugs, is trying to defend the diabolical, criminal industry that he makes his living off of.

    Homeopathy and spiritual healing kill far fewer Americans than allopathic medical practitioners.
     
    #41
  42. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    I have no problem with "allopathic" medicine, and I think Limpinhitter is being very hyperbolic here.

    On the other hand... in a drawer in my kitchen is one of those rubber things that you use to get a grip on the lid of a jar so you can open it. I'm not sure where it came from-- I think my girlfriend picked it up somewhere, maybe secondhand.

    Stamped on this jar opener are the words "VIOXX (rofecoxib)." I guess this is because people with arthritis have trouble opening jars.

    I see no reason that a jar opener with "Vioxx" on it should ever have existed, and when I look at that jar opener it's hard not to think that there are some serious ethical issues in the pharmaceutical industry.
     
    #42
  43. dlk

    dlk Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    3,132
    Location:
    Indy
    I followed you clearly until your last sentence. Please explain the issue you have with the marketing to people who need assistive OT devices. How does looking at the jar stir memories of "serious ethical issue?''
     
    #43
  44. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,590
    ^^ I also wonder about this. Tennis players festoon their clothes with ads for any manner of products irrelevant to what they do, but a jar opener aimed at advertising pain relief to people who might have trouble opening jars is unethical? As for drug reps, Pharma changed its own rules some years ago (not so much because they're great guys, but to show the government they could act on their own, and head off government action) and the reps now do almost nothing that isn't for an educational/informational purpose. Dinners and trips must have an educational purpose, and always do in my experience, though that wasn't always the case some years ago. I don't think it's always perfect, but is there an industry more closely regulated in this respect? Are people in other industries never sent on junkets by reps who are trying to sell something?
     
    #44
  45. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    They use education elsewhere as a tool for marketing as well and the difference between pharmaceutical goods and others is that they are not a simple consumption good like coca-cola.
     
    #45
  46. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,590
    Oh. Thanks for clarifying. I imagine that's why Coca Cola doesn't conduct educational seminars on the pharmacology of caffeine for supermarket purchasing reps. Coca Cola markets by saying "Coke is It!" and drug manufacturers market by providing some rather good educational opportunities. Myself and two colleagues were taken to dinner a few years ago with the former head of NIMH; it was tremendously helpful in terms of information, and he in no way was pimping for the host's product. I've been to a number of meetings where the speaker, usually someone of some gravitas, has essentially denigrated the product made by the host. People who haven't been to these meetings really have no clue what goes on at them.
     
    #46
  47. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    Yes, well, one could argue being on the inside has advantages, but some see disadvantages.

    I've seen and heard documentaries about the subject and have heard people defend and others criticise the system.

    Drugs are massively costly both to governments and to people so they should only be prescribed on the basis of independent professional advice unsullied by commercial considerations.
     
    #47
  48. El Diablo

    El Diablo Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,590
    1) most of the drugs I prescribe are paid for by commercial insurers or, more and more recently, the patients themselves. That there is marketing directed towards both the patient and myself is consistent with how the rest of the economy functions.
    2) the government spends money on everything from F-22 fighters to cars to pens to ground coffee to toilets to....well, pretty much every sort of product. Should we prohibit marketing for exactly one type of product because you don't happen to like the industry? Seems a bit arbitrary.
     
    #48
  49. Avles

    Avles Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,505
    Location:
    The Peak of Good Living
    Why is the jar opener ethically worrisome?

    Because the product in question was a new and not-yet thoroughly tested prescription drug with potentially deadly side effects.

    And because pharma manufacturers defend direct-to-consumer marketing by claiming that their ads are educational, but there's nothing educational about slapping your product's name on a jar opener (or a pen, or an umbrella, or any other piece of swag-- I'm sure you've seen plenty of examples) and hoping that it sticks in someone's head.

    The whole "ask your doctor if [OUR NEW DRUG] is right for you" phenomenon makes me pretty uneasy. Here's a Vioxx ad which was apparently aired in 2004 (so right before the drug was pulled): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lel03EKzqsg

    Do you really feel like that ad was fine? I don't.
     
    #49
  50. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,914
    I don't need a commercial insurer to buy a coke and if one cost thousands of dollars I wouldn't buy one.

    I don't need a commercial to make me desire a drug in the same way that one might want me buy a coke.

    Government is always involved in the drug industry, in america it happens indirectly so it benefits the companies and not people.



     
    #50

Share This Page