Your Thoughts Exactly

Sounds like a bad band name, huh? I especially like the two X's at the end of the name. Gives it a real edgy sound. Ok, that's enough. In case you didn't know, Vioxx was pulled from the shelves a few weeks ago, when Merck decided that the study condemning Vioxx as a heart attack risk was too much for them to handle. What's interesting is that Merck probably pulled Vioxx not because they were afraid people were going to die, but because the study would now open them up to litigation: anyone who was taking Vioxx and had a heart attack could sue Merck and get a whole bunch of money. The bad press and the stock hit they took were, to them, worth it. Of course, people are already suing them, but that was to be expected. By trying to admit that they knew nothing about it up till the study, they're limiting their liability, I would guess.

I'm not going to take a side on the issue here. It's possible that Merck knew there was a heart attack risk and choose to downplay it. If that's the case, then they deserve whatever bad press and punishment that is handed down to them. But, and I am inclined to believe Merck on this one, they didn't know (many of the execs and the family members were taking Vioxx), then what's the big deal?

Vioxx's rival drug, Celebrex, is one of the hottest selling drugs on the market. It promised athritis pain relief with few side effects, especially compared to taking drugs like Aleve or Advil every day. Celebrex has something like a 1.8% heart attack rate (Don't quote me on that number). Vioxx had something like a 2.7% heart attack rate. Most news sources only bothered to quote "50% GREATER RISK OF HEART ATTACK", when really, the numbers we are dealing with are small to begin with, and small to end with. Like I said, I'm not going to take sides. If Merck knew this, they are obligated to tell the public about something like this.

But here's the reality. All drugs have side effects, and for some people they show up, and for some people they don't. That's why when you hear this commercials for drugs, they say "if you have advanced BLANK disease or a history of BLANK problems, consult your doctor." Because these drugs have detrimental effects on BLANK organ, and they want to make sure that if the side effect shows up, it hopefully won't kill you.

So if Merck had simply said "if you have history of heart disease, please consult your doctor" then we'd probably been in the clear. Doctor's could prescribe Celebrex or Tylenol for those he thought were going to have a heart attack, and Vioxx for those who didn't. And that's what prescribing medicine is about; minimizing risk while maximizing the treatment. There's always going to be a more powerful drug that has more side effects. That's why they don't prescribe morphine for a muscle pull. And if you want to take the safe route, you can always just take no drugs at all, and deal with it.

All said though, people do need the right to know these things. Is an increase of .9% in heart attack risk worth the increased pain relief and reduced stomach ulcers? These are choices that people make anyway, right? Is the increase of .1% of cholesterol worth eating that bacon? Is skipping that 3K run worth the increase of atherosclerosis and increase in ass-sitting time? People and doctors should have the facts, and that's why I'm not going to take a side in this one, because I don't know the facts. I'll just say that Merck has reason to lie and protect their collective ass, and this FDA scientist has a reason to blow the whistle and get on the front pages of the news.

Coming soon: Half-Life 2 review!