This week, an important new investigative piece came out by my friend Melanie Segala, the managing editor of TOTAL HEALTH BREAKTHROUGHS (I'm a contributing editor to THB). It's worth reading, and Melanie has graciously allowed me to reproduce it for my readers.


Do you remember Vioxx? It was the anti-inflammatory pain medication taken by an estimated 80 million arthritis sufferers around the world from 1999 to 2004. The incredible success of the drug was due in large part to its supposed safety.


Unlike other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Vioxx did not cause stomach irritation or damage the kidneys in regular users. Its acceptance as one of the go-to drugs by mainstream medical practitioners earned manufacturer Merck & Co. profits of at least $11 billion in the five years it was on the market.1


Then as is often the case when taking synthetic chemicals, the reports of dangerous side effects began to surface -- and they were serious indeed. Thousands of people (or their survivors) claimed to have suffered heart attacks or strokes after taking the drug. In 2004, Merck voluntarily recalled Vioxx, and finally in 2008 paid out $4.85 billion to over 48,500 claimants in the US who proved they suffered adverse health effects from taking the drug.2


Now the same story, on a smaller scale, is being played out in an Australian courtroom. This time though, Merck & Company and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme are fighting a class action suit filed by more than 1000 Australians who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes after taking Vioxx.


While this move by Merck may not be surprising, some of the evidence being presented against them certainly is. According to published reports of the trial, before Vioxx was recalled, Merck had a very effective means to silence health professionals who expressed concerns or negative opinions about the drug.3


The shocking court evidence shows company employees drew up a "hit list" of doctors, researchers, and academics who, it was felt, had to be "neutralized" or discredited from criticizing the drug. Before you assume Merck hired a few of Tony Soprano's boys to do the job, I'll clarify, that's not what Merck had in mind.


Instead, their method for silencing professional critics consisted of intimidation in the form of subtle threats to cut off research funding and block academic appointments. According to one e-mail submitted as evidence, a Merck employee stated, "we may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live" -- a threat that amounts to ruining careers and jeopardizing livelihoods -- all for the sake of making big profits on a dangerous drug.


At one point the situation was so bad that Dr. James Fries, a professor of medicine at Stanford University wrote a letter to the CEO of Merck describing how at least eight clinical investigators on his staff had been victims of intimidation, including one who had received phone calls accusing him of "anti-Merck" bias.3According to Dr. Fries, tactics like this on the part of Merck employees, "seriously impinge on academic freedom." I agree with him 100%.


But now larger questions remain to be asked.


How many times have Merck and other companies in the Big Pharma cartel gotten away with silencing honest health professionals who were trying to stop dangerous drugs from being introduced to a trusting public?


How many of the thousands of people who suffered severe reactions including heart attacks and strokes from taking Vioxx could have been spared if critics had the freedom to speak out against its harmful effects --without reprisal?


Finally, how many potentially dangerous pharmaceuticals are currently being marketed even though leading researchers have serious doubts about their safety?


The Vioxx case gives us only a glimpse into how Big Pharma operates behind the scenes to continue growing its huge profits. If this is any indication, consumer safety seems to be at the bottom of their list of priorities.


References

[LIST=1][*]http://www.injuryboard.com/national-...oogleid=245300
[*]http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/3474
[*]http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...0-2702,00.html