Vioxx -- The Beginning of the End for Conventional Medicine

Vioxx -- The Beginning of the End for Conventional Medicine

Feds Ignore Vioxx Warnings


It seems that evidence continues to surface concerning Vioxx’s removal from the market. The drug, developed to reduce pain and inflammation, was proven to double cardiovascular risks such as heart attack and stroke. However, it has also been discovered that Merck, the drug’s manufacturer, was not so oblivious to these adverse side effects after all.

One Denial After Another

In March 2000, Merck was first notified of the possible heart risks linked to taking Vioxx. The findings were derived from a study focusing on Rheumatoid Arthritis . Even though the drug showed to reduce the risk of internal bleeding, it appeared to raise the incidence of heart problems.

In May 2000, Merck was again notified of the drug’s link to cardiovascular risk. Though, instead of addressing the issue and conducting trials to pinpoint the dangers of using Vioxx, Merck executives rejected further studies.

Due to this lack of concern, or pure negligence, Merck faces Congressional and Justice Department investigations, as well as potentially thousands of personal-injury lawsuits. Regardless of the accusations against them, Merck stands firm in its rebuttal, stating, “The company acted responsibly, voluntarily withdrawing Vioxx as soon as it had clear evidence the drug was harmful.

That was the understatement of the year.

In 2002, a study found that using Vioxx damaged the lipids in a way that made them more susceptible to clotting. Further suspicions were raised after one of the FDA’s own scientists presented evidence that Vioxx had been associated with over 27,000 heat attacks or deaths linked to cardiac problems.
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041115/ZNYT04/4111...
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=249039
***************************************************************

Dr.Mercola's comments:

Please remember that back in 1999, I posted warnings about Vioxx, BEFORE it was even on the market. I honestly don’t know how much more of a warning I could have posted.

Even at this time I knew this drug was a prescription for disaster and I specifically recall conversations with Merck drug reps that laughed at me when I showed them the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. I doubt they are laughing now.

Also, in addition to the Vioxx “scandal,” mounting concern has another Merck drug in the spotlight: Bextra. It seems this drug may not be any safer than Vioxx, as analysis shows it may double the risk of heart and stroke among heart disease patients.

One of the experts responsible for gathering this evidence was Dr. Curt Furberg, a Wake Forest University School of Medicine professor of public health sciences.

It happened that Furberg, a federal adviser on drug safety and risk management, received a call from an FDA official telling him he was no longer welcome to attend a meeting discussing Bextra, due to the fact that he publicly expressed doubts and concerns of using the drug. Of course, the FDA says, due to conflicts of interest, these calls happen all the time.

Folks, believe me this is merely the tip of the iceberg. The entire conventional system is posed to fall. You simply cannot pull the wool over the public eyes for that much longer. People are craving the truth. They want authentic real solutions to their health challenges that don't cost them an arm and a leg. That is one of the main primary intentions of this site. And as result of providing consumers with this information and education the paradigm will shift.

Tweet