Posted on 01/15/2006 11:21:12 PM PST by indianrightwinger
ew England Journal of Politics January 16, 2006; Page A14
Merck scored a court victory late last month, convincing all but one federal juror that it acted responsibly in developing and marketing its Vioxx painkiller. What makes the outcome more notable is that it came despite the efforts of Merck's latest accuser, the New England Journal of Medicine.
Accusations aren't the usual fare of august medical journals, so it's worth trying to understand the publication's self-insertion into the Merck litigation. Its extraordinary decision to publish a critical statement about a Vioxx study it ran years ago is being hailed by trial lawyers as the best evidence yet that Merck played fast and loose with its data. Another way to say this is that the New England Journal is joining the ranks of academic publications risking their reputations as non-partisan arbiters of good science in order to rumble in the political tarpits.
The facts and timing of the Merck ambush certainly suggest as much. Late last year the New England Journal published an "Expression of Concern" about a Vioxx study it carried in 2000, baldly accusing researchers of omitting key data to make the painkiller appear more safe. The statement curiously appeared just as jurors began debating the latest Vioxx verdict. In case anyone missed the point, Executive Editor Gregory Curfman followed with his own attack on Merck, telling reporters he was "stunned" that the researchers had "allowed" his journal to publish a "misleading" article. In response to Merck's explanation, Dr. Curfman bluntly noted: "We're not buying into that."
Any journal has an obligation to demand honest studies. Yet the facts of this case suggest that is exactly what it got. In November 2000 the journal published a Vioxx study funded by Merck, which was ostensibly looking for gastrointestinal problems.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Sad future awaits us, Canada/France style.
Right, something-for-nothing never goes out of style.
As the saying goes: If you think you got something for nothing, it means you haven't got the bill yet.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Yes, but to some people it is "free". Just ask anyone in the lines of illegal aliens you see at your local overwhelmed Hospital Emergency Room, or the Medicaid single mother sitting with all her sniffly brats in the Doctor's office.
"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free!" - P.J. O'Rourke
I wish I could read this whole article. Looks very interesting.
a book on the topic:
PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness Is Corrupting Medicine (Paperback)
by Sally, M.D. Satel,
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046507183X/qid=1137434710/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/104-7056209-6803104?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Check your mail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.