http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuo...mtfh38886_2005-12-08_21-17-27_n0834361_newsml Journal says Merck deleted Vioxx safety info Thu Dec 8, 2005 04:17 PM ET NEW YORK, Dec 8 (Reuters) - The New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday said Merck & Co. (MRK.N: Quote, Profile, Research) withheld information about the cardiac side effects of arthritis drug Vioxx when it presented the journal data from a key trial on the medicine's safety in 2000. The medical journal said it has determined that Merck deleted data on "cardiovascular outcomes" prior to submitting its manuscript of the so-called Vigor trial, in which the safety of Vioxx was compared with the widely used treatment naproxen for rheumatoid arthritis. "The evidence has raised questions about the integrity of the data on adverse cardiovascular events in the article and about some of the article's conclusions," the Journal said in a statement on its Web site. The Journal said it had made the discovery of the alleged deletions as part of preparations for the recent deposition of the executive editor of the Journal in connection with Vioxx-related litigation. The drug was withdrawn in September 2004 after being shown to double the risk of heart attack and stroke in patients taking the medicine for 18 months or longer.
The only people who are going to be surprised by this are those who haven't yet realized that the "profit motive" has transformed from a disembodied economic concept into an ethos practiced almost religiously by high-tier businessmen. It's the highest possible priority, so a few deaths from white lies make little difference if they don't impact profits or perturb shareholders. P.S. I'm sure the D&D is nearby.
If you've read the article "Death by Medicine" in the New England Journal of Medicine, you'd know how pervasive the effects of profit motive are. Something like 80% of drug company sponsored trials find positive effects of drugs while only 50% of indpendent trials find positivie effects. The health care industry is actually the leading killer in America. http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm
Drug companies are more selective in sponsoring trials. If a trial has low chance of success and may hurt marketing, they won't sponsor it. So 80% sounds a reasonable success rate. Drug companies in general will send all relevant trial results to FDA. However, they are less likely to publish failed trials or data in NEJM or JAMA. That is the so-called "publication bias". I understand it's fashionable to trash drug companies. But millions and millions of patients have benefited from those new drugs, far more than those being "killed".
Folks, without profits for drug companies, no drugs would be made. Take your pick, because you can't have it both ways.
that is true in this industry and most others as well...Ethics would be nice, unfortunately, sometimes its not apart of the main objective...
