Exactly.
Merck lost big because they committed fraud. It wasn't just a case of "tough calls". And I say this as a Merck stockholder.
I am glad the WSJ disclosed that Mr. Epstein consults with the pharmaceutical industry (does not mean his opinion is any less valid, it just makes the piece transparent). I agree about the problems with Merck...they really spun the results of their studies to physicians and tried everything possible to play down the cardiac risks that showed up in the studies...to the point that they did not release some of it until much later...that is why there is little sympathy for them from physicians.
If Merck had been more transparent then I think that it would have been possible to conduct a risk/benefit analysis to better see which patients would benefit from Vioxx with recognition of the increased (but small) cardiac risk. There are some patients who really benefited from Vioxx and now that it is gone are pretty miserable.
Another thing that really upsets me is that Merck was marketing Vioxx (direct to consumer ads) with skaters and everyone else---young people who could well take a regular NSAID (ibuprofen, etc) and for that reason I have less sympathy for them....I am sorry, but there is/was never a reason a 20 year old healthy guy with a strained knee or back needed Vioxx---but by God that is to whom Merck was marketing Vioxx!!!
Another problem with Epstein's piece is that he does not point out that the risk/benefit analysis he discusses was never allowed to come about because of Merck's handling of the study data.
I am glad the WSJ disclosed that Mr. Epstein consults with the pharmaceutical industry (does not mean his opinion is any less valid, it just makes the piece transparent). I agree about the problems with Merck...they really spun the results of their studies to physicians and tried everything possible to play down the cardiac risks that showed up in the studies...to the point that they did not release some of it until much later...that is why there is little sympathy for them from physicians.
If Merck had been more transparent then I think that it would have been possible to conduct a risk/benefit analysis to better see which patients would benefit from Vioxx with recognition of the increased (but small) cardiac risk. There are some patients who really benefited from Vioxx and now that it is gone are pretty miserable.
Another thing that really upsets me is that Merck was marketing Vioxx (direct to consumer ads) with skaters and everyone else---young people who could well take a regular NSAID (ibuprofen, etc) and for that reason I have less sympathy for them....I am sorry, but there is/was never a reason a 20 year old healthy guy with a strained knee or back needed Vioxx---but by God that is to whom Merck was marketing Vioxx!!!
Another problem with Epstein's piece is that he does not point out that the risk/benefit analysis he discusses was never allowed to come about because of Merck's handling of the study data.