Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> ThePopTort

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Consumer Law

: ThePopTort

Merck Up To Its Old Tricks - Even 'Down Under'

By Amanda

ADVERTISEMENTS

Vioxx, the painkiller taken off the market in late 2004, by its manufacturer Merck has become poster-child of greedy drug companies reaping the rewards (the drug reached $2.5 billion in sales in 2003) by keeping its dangerous drug on the market despite knowing of an increased risk of injury or death.

Lawsuits played a key role unearthing documents showing what lengths Merck went to cover up mounting evidence that patients taking Vioxx were experiencing a high number of heart attacks and strokes.

One incredible document was called ?Dodge Ball Vioxx? and the company used it to train drug reps to dodge questions doctors might ask about the safety of the drug. In 2007, Merck settled with nearly 50,000 Vioxx victims for $4.85 billion, although many cases are still continuing.

One place where Merck continues to defend itself is Australia (even though the ability of patients to recover compensation there is minimal), and incredibly, more information continues to come out of the court case there. Specifically, during the Australian trial, it was reveled that the company gave its sales reps ?cheatsheets? that offered line-by-line instructions on how to deal with doctors tough questions about the safety of Vioxx (made more difficult by the research that proved Vioxx increased a patient?s risk of cardiovascular events).

Additionally through this case we have learned that the company also paid for a publication, which closely resembled a peer-reviewed medical journal. In the Merck-sponsored ?journal? were articles that referred positively to many of Merck?s drugs, including Vioxx, but there was no indication that the drug company had funded the publication. The publisher, Elesevier, one of the largest medical publishers in the world said ?it had failed to meet its own ?high standards for disclosure? when it produced a magazine that pretended to be an independent scientific journal but was actually a marketing front for Merck's anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx.?

With Vioxx, it seems the story never ends.

Full post as published by ThePopTort on May 15, 2009 (boomark / email).