What are the Negative Effects of Marketing?

What do you think of the news that Merck's study of Vioxx side effects was conducted for marketing purposes?

  • Answer:

    Merck's knew Vioxx was deadly for years before risk was made public Merck's Vioxx scandal widens: Drug maker knew Vioxx was deadly for years before risk was made public (opinion) Wednesday, November 25, 2009 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of http://NaturalNews.com (NaturalNews) The Vioxx scandal widened this week as new research published in the Archives of Internal Medicine reveals that Vioxx maker Merck held data for three years that proved Vioxx caused an alarming increase in the risk of heart attacks and strokes. And yet Merck chose not to release that data. In fact, it took three more years of patients dying from heart attacks before Vioxx was pulled off the market, and even then, Merck insisted the drug was not dangerous. This new study was based on a meta-analysis of several unpublished studies that Merck obviously didn't want to see published in medical journals. Drug companies routinely engage in this subterfuge: They cherry-pick which studies they want published while burying the rest. They also choose which studies to forward to the FDA, all while claiming the whole charade is based on "evidence-based medicine." It is, sort of. If you add the word "selective" in front of the phrase, making it: "Selective evidence-based medicine." Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/027582_Merck_Vioxx.html

Paxton_Fettel at Amazon Askville Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Merck's study of Vioxx side effects was conducted for marketing purposes Researchers are shocked to discover that a study done to "test the side effects of Vioxx" was really conducted to support a marketing campaign for the drug. Of course, they were paid by the plaintiffs in the anti-Vioxx litigation. WSJ: A 1999 clinical study that Merck & Co. said was done to test side effects of the painkiller Vioxx was, in fact, conducted primarily to support a marketing campaign before the drug's launch, according to a study being published Tuesday. Researchers said their findings, based on internal Merck records disclosed during litigation, are among the first to document what many scientists suspect is a wider industry practice of using studies masquerading as clinical science to bolster marketing plans. Such behavior would raise ethical and scientific questions, from whether study participants were unknowingly -- and needlessly -- put in harm's way, to whether a company's research is reliable. "You hear people talk about it, but I've never seen anyone publish on it or formally admit to it," says Arthur Caplan, a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist. Kevin Hill, a psychiatrist at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., who was lead author of the study, said, "Patients and physicians weren't told about the marketing objectives of the trial." Because participants in clinical studies expose themselves to drugs' potentially dangerous side effects, he adds, "They need to know what they're risking their health for." The trial led to doctors who helped conduct the study prescribing more Vioxx than those who didn't. Which suggests (to us, anyway) that the doctors liked it. Source: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2008-08-19/news/30017260_1_vioxx-participants-in-clinical-studies-researchers

Webhunter

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.