Annals of Intl Med: Vioxx study was for marketing, Merck employees ghostwrote some experts papers

Vioxx study was for marketing, Merck employees ghostwrote some experts' papers

Merck Employees ghost wrote papers for Professors that praised Vioxx



Merck endangered patients when disguising marketing program as a scientific trial

and what they subsequently covered up, a serious link with potentially lethal cardiac events and embolic stroke.

Remember, the real ethical lapse here was covering up a pattern of serious adverse reactions in order to preserve profits.

Were it up to me, anyone involved in the suppression of this vital data would go to prison.

Unfortunately, it's up to an FDA that has been packed with wingnut appointees.

It's transference from the Vioxx thing.

Because Merck created was involved in this vaccine, you slander the work of countless researches who had nothing to do with Vioxx.

It's about a grudge against Merck and not on the merits of the vaccine.

You disappoint me.

From How We Enforce The Discussion Forum Rules
This is a detailed explanation of how we enforce the basic message board rules.
Last updated February 1, 2006.


"Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html


For you to accuse me of slander is the same as calling me a liar.

And you also like to stalk me, any thread I post on you are sure to follow, attacking all the way:

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

If you want an echo chamber, try the Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing Group.

If the mods agree, they will delete it.

If they don't, then suck it up and make your argument with facts.

:rofl:

That's rich.

You just accused me of slander, now show me some documentation .

Put up or shut up.

And that you don't believe the researchers involved in Gardasil are deliberately trying to foist a vaccine they know is dangerous on the world (see your death and boric acid thread).

And that you don't believe that people who disagree with you are shills for big pharma?


"Varkam suffered damage to his reasoning ability due to bad vaccinations early on. The symptoms are revealed by Varkam's inability to post his own threads supporting his
thesis."

"But but Merck NEEDS to sell this vaccine - to pay for the Vioxx claims

where Merck misled and kept peddling the crap knowing that it was killing people.

Then, when the class action suits against Gardasil start and finish, Merck will
be peddling some other crap.

Brilliant scheme peddling it towards young girls."

So we can't infer from your own postings, that you are deeply distrustful of Merck and that you believe that the their is a concerted effort to put profit above public health with regards to Gardasil, thereby impugning the motivations of everyone involved in bringing this vaccine to market?

its like you are having an argument in your head, with what your own words projected onto me.

Keep trying to supress me by harassing me and trying to ridicule.
It makes me want to work harder to bring some sunlight here into the Health forum.

...of the entire company.

Tell us what you know about these products:

Arcoxia (etoricoxib) - for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (not approved in the US, but approved and sold in Europe, Latin America, the Asia-Pacific region and Middle East/Northern Africa)
Cancidas (caspofungin) - An echinocandins antifungal drug for treatment of Aspergillus and Candida.
Cosopt (dorzolamide and timolol) - reduces intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Cozaar/Hyzaar (losartan)- used to treat hypertension, to reduce the risk of strokes and to treat diabetic nephropathy.
Crixivan (indinavir) – a protease inhibitor HIV medication.
Emend (aprepitant) – treats vomiting and nausea brought about by chemotherapy.
Emend Injection (fosaprepitant dimeglumine) - an intravenous drug for nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy
Emflex (Acemetacin) - a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
Fosamax (alendronate) – osteoporosis medication.
Fosamax Plus D (alendronate/vitamin D) – osteoporosis medication.
Indocin (Indometacin) - a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
Invanz (ertapenem) - an injectable antibiotic (carbapenem) used for those with diabetic foot infections.
Isentress (raltegravir) - HIV integrase inhibitor.
Janumet (sitagliptin/metformin) - an oral anti-diabetic drug for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Januvia (sitagliptin) - a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor for the treatment of diabetes
Maxalt (rizatriptan) one of many triptans used to treat migraines.
Mectizan/Stromectol (ivermectin) - used to treat river blindness.
MMR Vaccine - immunization against measles, mumps and rubella.
Pneumovax 23 (Pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine) - a vaccine used to prevent Streptococcus pneumoniae infections such as pneumonia and septicaemia.
Primaxin (imipenem with cilastatin) – a broad spectrum carbapenem antibiotic.
Propecia/Proscar (finasteride) – used for alopecia (male pattern baldness) and prostatic conditions.
ProQuad (MMRV vaccine) - a vaccine for simultaneous vaccination against measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children.
Recombivax HB (hepatitis B vaccine) - a vaccine that protects against hepatitis B.
Rotateq - a vaccine to prevent rotavirus gastroenteritis, a leading cause of severe diarrhea in infants and young children ages 0 to 12.
Singulair (montelukast) – an asthma medication that blocks leukotrienes.
Timoptic (timolol) - a non-selective beta-adrenergic receptor blocker used to treat high blood pressure and prevent heart attacks.
Tredaptive (laropiprant/ER niacin) - a new lipid-modifying therapy for patients with dyslipidemia and primary hypercholesterolemia (not approved in the US, but approved in the European Union)
Trusopt (dorzolamide) - reduces intraocular pressure in people with glaucoma or ocular hypertension.
Vaqta (Hepatitis A vaccine) - a vaccine that protects against hepatitis A.
Varivax (Varicella vaccine) - a vaccine that protects against chickenpox. Vioxx (rofecoxib)- for the symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis.
Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) – a combination cholesterol-lowering preparation marketed in collaboration with Schering-Plough.
Zetia (ezetimibe) - cholesterol absorption inhibitor which lowers LDL
Zocor (simvastatin) – a cholesterol-lowering statin.
Zolinza (vorinostat) - a histone deacetylase inhibitor for the treatment of cutaneous T cell lymphoma.
Zostavax - a vaccine for prevention of shingles in adults older than 60 years of age.

They all come from Merck, but based on what happened with Vioxx, we must distrust every single one of them?

Quit trying to distract.

Answer the question.

Cite the exact sentence or sentences that I posted that show I slandered Merck.

provide a link.

:boring:

Got nothing do you?

Cause you don't have facts, you just made up crap and posted it here.

No facts "Liberal Veteran"?

Simply put, when you say that Merck was merely pushing Gardasil (apparently without regard to public safety, if I may summarize the "evidence" you presented) to make up for it's payouts in Vioxx, it was impugning the reputation of everyone involved in bringing this vaccine to market.

Your umbrage not withstanding, do you really believe that after 12 or so negative threads started within a week concerning the "dangers" of Gardasil peppered with a few negative Merck/Vioxx threads and railing against big pharma, that one cannot see a pattern and form some ideas of your position?

That is neither here nor there. However. This IS, first and foremost, a discussion board.....not an echo chamber. And there are any number of people who are determined not to let the "Health" become the "We Hate Western Medicine/Big Pharma" by throwing our hands up in disgust and walking away.

People are going to disagree in this forum and calling people shills, trolls, brain damaged by vaccination, living in their parent's basement, putting quotes around someone's handle, and acting shocked that people might (like yourself) be interested in this topic to refute some very one-sided threads is hardly the way to encourage civil discourse.

But I think you already know that.

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

wasting space but thanks for kicking my thread up so that more people will see it.

And yours:

Quoted, actually.

Slander is spoken. Libel is written.

And, anyway, Liberal Veteran wrote nothing libelous, as far as I can discern.

This thread didn't start out to be a vaccine thread, and you are taking it there.

Is that really what you want?

Just a question--are you even just a teeny tiny bit concerned about the Merck/Vioxx ghostwriting?

...people never address the evil that these pharmaceutical companies engage in.

There is no discussion on the merck/Vioxx ghostwriting.

Just attacks of the OP.

The fact of the matter is--we are still learning about Gardisil and its effects. The
jury is still out. More information is coming in. The fact also remains that Merck
is a company that has sold drugs that they knew causes death and harmful side effects--but
they suppressed that information to sell more product and make more profit.

To absolutely slam shut any possibility that Gardisil might be harmful--is bizarre--given
Merck's history.

So, when someone comes along and posts research about a different Merck product and is
leery of Merck--that's a bad thing? Come on, you'd have to be a complete fool to NOT
question Merck, given their history.

There should probably be three separate type threads on these issues

1. Gardasil and a lot is not known, etc., etc.

2. Merck had its employees or contractors do ghostwriting for Vioxx and hid information.

3. The corporate health care system and its interaction with the FDA is more about profits than health, and this is illustrated by Merck, its studies on Vioxx, and, potentially at the very least, problems with Gardasil and/or any other drugs coming from that company or any other large pharmaceutical company.

There are probably some people here that have actual nuanced views of these three different issues (go figure!). Those are difficult enough to express in a thread where there is just one subject, but to conflate all these things together in every single thread seems really counterproductive.

We have a hard enough time trying to get attention to anything here that is not vaccine related, so I just really vehemently oppose someone trying to change the subject of the OP and trying to turn it into yet another vaccine thread. But nobody consults me before they post, LOL.

If they are corrupt enough to have their employees ghostwrite papers and have it palmed off
as objective experts' work, then imagine when and where a company that big could have
their ghostwriters posting?

They do the following:

1. follow me to any thread I start,and criticize me purely for posting the thread.

2. make personal attacks and paint people who don't agree with them in a broad brush - anyone who has concerns about Gardasil or posts news articles critical of it are - fundies, conservatives, anti sex, anti science, anti vaccine, etc.

3. make false accusations. i.e accuse me of slandering Merck because I posted a news article (run in the AP no less and based on a medical journal's complaint) that exposes Merck for deceptive and dangerous practices again.

4. make posts telling me that my Op doesn't belong in the Health Forum.

5. disrupt the threads, any threads and all threads that I post.

notice that?

If I post a thread with a news item and links, they glom onto this thread, like fleas to a dog.
Or ticks. They suck the blood out of the person posting the thread until they are fat like ticks,
and in this case, they never fall off until a new host or victim is available (new thread)

Like fleas or ticks, they need a host, because they do nothing on their own.

Blood suckers.

People who oppose Gardasil have sometimes been accused of being foolish, wrong, ignorant, bigoted, or at worst fundies. But those who support it - or at least strongly defend people's right to have it - get accused of being shills and of having mercenary motives - which is FAR worse. I will put up with anti-Gardasil or anti-vaccination people calling me wrong, stupid, gullible, ignorant, whatever you choose - but NOT mercenary or a shill. That is a truly VILE slur, on a different level from any of the others, ESPECIALLY for those of us whose interest in health comes wholly or in part from our being *patients*. I generally let other types of personal attack pass over me; I've allowed someone on another forum to call me 'ignorant swill' without alerting or making a fuss; I've allowed someone to say that I'm 'only a guest on the board because I'm not American', without alerting or making a fuss - but I will NOT allow anyone to call me mercenary, with regard my concern about my own and others' access to medication. THAT exceeds all limits.

The very word 'pro-Pharma' is in fact a personal attack by implication. We are pro-vaccination and pro-Western-medicine; not particularly 'pro-Pharma'. Most of us support universal single-payer healthcare (several of us come from countries that have it, and strongly wish to defend and preserve it against the free marketeers) and a reduced role of Pharma input in medical decision-making - we just don't oppose or reject vaccines and medications simply because of a suspicion of Pharma. It's all very reminiscent of the way in which anti-abortion people call themselves 'pro-life', implying that people who support women's abortion rights are anti-life.

None of this has anything to do with ghostwriting or the OP.

We would all be better served sticking to the topic at hand.

They do take a page from the framing book used by the right wing-nuts, don't they?

Excellent post, thanks.

The *same* post in which you berate others for making personal attacks, you call them "blood suckers."
:rofl:

Classic textbook hypocrisy.

:rofl:

I would much rather that Pharma's role was reduced, in favour of universal state provision and regulation of medical treatments. However, I am not going to deny myself, my family, or others access to modern medicine, just because Pharma might be making a profit from it. There is such a thing as cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

You may be pro research and pro vaccine or whatever, and get all of the vaccines you want.

But I won't be stopped from posting news articles here.

There is a concerted effort by a few to follow me to any threads I post and make personal
attacks since they can't garner the energy to make their own OPs nor can they find any
facts to post.

It appears that this thread about Merck's ghost writers has some people really worried.

Arguing about their implications isn't stopping you from doing so.

But I am saying right now: I have not alerted on anything here so far; but from now on, I am going to alert on ANY attempt to ascribe mercenary motives to me, or to any other pro-Gardasil (or other pro-vaccination) poster.

If you cannot refute challenges to your claims, post in a group, don't pretend others are persecuting you.

You see, if anyone disagrees with WYVBC then that is an affront to its personal character. If you say "I don't think that's right", you're basically saying "You're a stupid buttpipe and I hope you die in a tremendously violent fashion such that congress will pass a law named after you ". In addition, to disagree with WYVBC means that you have something seriously wrong with you. Why, your mother must of taken away your video games, or you must be warped from having lived in her basement for years, or vaccines that you had as a child must of compromised your reasoning ability because if you weren't mentally defective then the logic inherent in WYVBC's arguments would be axiomatic!

I think that about sums it up.

:rofl:

but the OP did not slander the pharmaceutical company here. What was posted were snips from major recognized media. You need to take it up with them. I look forward to reading your ltte's in the AP and Philly Enquirer. Transference from the vioxx thing, now your qualified to make that diagnosis sir?

Merck has shown that they will knowingly and willingly suppress information about
their drugs--that can kill and leave people seriously injured for life.

That's a systemic problem with the corporation.

It is rational to question other products from Merck--given that we know this corporation
has put profits before lives.

What you are saying is completely bizarre. You are attacking this poster and positioning this
person as somehow wrong or biased. It's not only legitimate to question drugs, vaccines and products
that come out of Merck--it's essential.

In this day and age--where Bush has gutted the FDA and corporations are more important than the lives
of Americans--how in the world can you criticize anyone for questioning, researching and discussing
legitimate research that is out there on Gardisil or any other drug?

You totally sound like you have some kind of agenda. You attack the OP for posting research on Gardisil,
and you do it in Rovian like fashion--attacking the messenger but not addressing the message. You look
pretty transparent from my vantage point.

Do you work for any pharmaceutical company? Are you a researcher or connected in any way to
the medical or pharmaceutical community?

It's very surreal to be on a messageboard where everything is questioned and we universally understand
that corporations are raping the American public--yet all of a sudden a handful feel that the pharmaceutical
companies can do no wrong and that people who question companies that have killed people before--are
suspect and committing slander?

Unbelievable.

years on this vaccine?) Her position on the vaccine has been called anti-vaccination, here, by people like yourself. Funny thing is, many DU-ers expressed the very same concerns she did, prior to her doing so. Why? Because we read information on the jab with an open mind.

Merck went AGAINST the better judgement of the researchers you say are being slandered. Does that disappoint you at all Liberal Veteran?

http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3046

He developed the viral load test and is used by HIV denialists because he disagreed with how the test was used, yet it has been proven to be a valuable a diagnostic tool in HIV treatment.

disaster is not relevant.

"Gardasil was tested in clinical trials involving nearly 12,000 women, including more than 1,100 girls ages 9 to 15. About 2 million doses of the vaccine were distributed by Dec. 31, 2006, and both Harper and Halsey say there have been no signs that Gardasil is unsafe. The CDC's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received reports of minor injection-site reactions and other issues, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Harper, who conducted a clinical trial of Gardasil and has been researching HPV for 20 years, says the vaccine performs well, with effectiveness approaching 100 percent.

Does it make sense to vaccinate girls as young as 9, 10 or 11?
With most HPV cases arising from sexual activity - and increasing reports of tweens becoming sexually active - experts are recommending the vaccine starting at age 11 and, if a doctor finds it necessary, as early as age 9. "We never know when our children are going to have their first sexual experience," says Halsey.

On the other hand, the vaccine has so far only been proven to offer protection for about five years, leading some to worry that immunity could wane before young girls even need protection. "If you give the vaccine at age 9, and you have a five-year window, you might not be protecting against much," Harper says."

Seems to me she has some issues about mandating the vaccine, but no real concerns about its safety.

I see nothing wrong with that.

In another article she suggests that co-committant vaccination with meningococcal vaccine would not be advisable, but overall is very positive about the vaccine.

mandated for. She also suggests beginning vaccination for HPV at the age of 18 vs. 9. In addition, she said that this "mass experiment" her words, could ultimately result in MORE cancers. She never intended for the vaccine to be used in the manner it is.

Vaccine. 2008 Mar 14;26 Suppl 1 :A7-11

Age for HPV vaccination.
Diane M Harper, Jorma Paavonen
Dartmouth College, Department of Women's and Gender Studies, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Community and Family Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA. Diane.M.Harper@Dartmouth.edu

HPV vaccination of pre-pubescent girls will be effective for many girls. Vaccinating girls and women older than 12 years of age may accelerate the reduction in cervical cancer rates. Currently HPV vaccines are effective for at least 5 years in the prevention of HPV 16 and 18 associated precancerous lesions however the duration of vaccine protection is unknown. The need for booster shots must therefore be addressed with patients as unknown. Continued cervical cancer screening is necessary regardless of vaccination. Vaccination alone will not eliminate cervical cancer.




Of course that's just the abstract of the paper she co-wrote. Then again, how she intended the vaccine to be used is irrelevant. She is not the creator of the vaccine.

I know how easily an otherwise respected scientist can made to appear to be much more....sympathetic...to a particular point of view than they actually are.

For example one could write an article on an ambulance chasers site (You just got to roll your eyes at the ads that accompany that link you gave) that basically has a single paragraph of actual quotes with barely any context to it:

Dr. Harper, who has dedicated two decades of her career to research on HPV, told Florida TV station WFOR-TV that the rush to recommend and mandate the vaccination of very young girls “went too fast without any breaks.” Dr. Harper says that there has not been enough post-marketing surveillance of Gardasil to insure that it is free of side effects that could prove particularly dangerous to young girls. “We don’t know yet what’s going to happen when millions of doses of the vaccine have been given and to put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine, it means you must be part of a big public experiment. So we can’t do that until we have more data.” Dr. Harper said.

Note that sentence in the middle is not a quote at all, but a very strained interpretation of the supporting sentence which just basically says: We should careful about mandates until we have more data. Which is a totally logical approach. And one we might agree on.

before commenting on what the Dr. has said.

"Dr. Harper, who has dedicated two decades of her career to research on HPV, told Florida TV station WFOR-TV that the rush to recommend and mandate the vaccination of very young girls “went too fast without any breaks.” Dr. Harper says that there has not been enough post-marketing surveillance of Gardasil to insure that it is free of side effects that could prove particularly dangerous to young girls. “We don’t know yet what’s going to happen when millions of doses of the vaccine have been given and to put in place a process that says you must have this vaccine, it means you must be part of a big public experiment. So we can’t do that until we have more data.” Dr. Harper said."

Dr. Harper worked on this vaccine for two years, yet according to many here her opinion would be considered "anti-vaccine."

A site that still mouths the mercury / autism hypothesis. LV posted an abstract that the doc actually wrote.

Hmmm...which to give more weight to...

if you'd like more info. Here, I'll do it for you:

http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2007/03/14/online_features/hpv_vaccine/hpv01.txt

Please read the article this time. Here are some key snips:



I've provided you with other articles and interviews from the Dr. indicating the same concerns and then some.

With that, I'm back to laying low for a time.

Peace

eom

...which has its own well-documented problems and is a whole separate issue. It does prove a pattern with the company, though, when two if its products are so publically defective and dangerous. Doesn't that warrant holding a bit of a "grudge"? For my part, it certainly makes me question the safety of anything they produce, especially new-on-the-market products.

And I actually had a bit of a favorable view of Merck at first, since I used to live not far from where their main plant is, so they were part of our community at least by osmosis. By now, I wouldn't trust them to medicate my houseplants.

unless you are going to back up your accusation.

Riff Raff: With a bit of a mind flip...
Magenta: You're into a time slip...
Riff Raff: And nothing can ever be the same.
Magenta: You're spaced out on sensation. HAH!
Riff Raff: Like you're under sedation!
All: Let's do the time warp again!

as information like this is too important to bury.