FDA Too Slow to Pull Drugs Like Vioxx and Baycol
The associated press reported today that several new studies found that the FDA and Bayer were too slow to pull the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol. Baycol was pulled in 2001, but that did not happen until long after results demonstrated Baycol's dangerous side effects.
Testimony in Congress last week (dealing with the Vioxx recall by Merck) indicated that the FDA is not set up to adequately monitor drug studies for dangerous side effects after the drug has been approved.
Now the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association on Monday recommended the establishment of an independent drug safety review office similar to what had been recommended by Dr. David Graham, the drug safety officer who testified that his concerns about Vioxx had been ignored.
posted by Dan Goldstein @ 1:01 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Today the NY Times reported that "as far back as 2001, Merck officials had evidence, based on the company's own research, that this might not be true for potentially hundreds of thousands of Vioxx users - those, mostly middle-aged and older, who regularly took low doses of aspirin, not for pain, but to reduce their risk of heart attack or stroke."
This is in blatent contradiction to Merck's position that Vioxx would reduce stomach side effects to the vast number of people who were taking aspirin.
Where was the FDA? Who was minding the store?
The trial lawyers are always blamed for being greedy and looking out for themselves, but they are the ones who protect and defend the people against the wrongs and injustices of the large corporations. The more I research this issue, the more upset I get.
If you've suffered a heart attack or stroke after taking Vioxx, you deserve to be compensated. Almost as important, the big companies like Merck deserve to be punished for putting profits ahead of people.
Who knows some good trial lawyers who can help people with Vioxx claims?
Post a Comment
<< Home