Originally published August 4 2005
Lawsuit alleges Merck relied on misleading animal test data with Vioxx
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has filed a lawsuit claiming Merck pharmaceutical company -- makers of prescription Vioxx, an arthritis medicine pulled off the market in 2004 because of the dangerous health risks it posed -- used unreliable animal testing data to vouch for the safety of their product, even though other research had suggested Vioxx could increase risk of heart problems.
More than 3,800 product-liability and injury lawsuits have been filed against Merck for its sales of Vioxx, which the company pulled off the market in September 2004.
The PCRM lawsuit is the first to focus on Merck's use of animal-testing data as contributing to the injuries suffered by consumers who took Vioxx.
Despite having test results "from over 8,000 humans that the drug was killing people," Merck continued to use animal studies to justify continuing to sell Vioxx, said Dr. John Pippin, a cardiologist and consultant to PCRM.
The complaint requests punitive damages on behalf of Nancy Tufford, a Minnesota woman who took Vioxx from January 2002 until the summer of 2004.
Tufford was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and abnormal heart function in 2003 and had no previous history of heart problems, PCRM said.
In 2001, the Cleveland Clinic Heart Center reviewed a human clinical study of Vioxx known as VIGOR and found that Vioxx increased the rate of cardiovascular events such as heart attacks or strokes by 220 percent compared with patients who were taking naproxen, a competing drug.
After the Cleveland Clinic study, Merck claimed that Vioxx patients experienced more heart problems not because the drug increased risk, but because naproxen protected against heart ailments, similar to aspirin.
Pippin said Merck's claim about naproxen was based on tests the company performed on animals, including a 2000 test on African green monkeys.
Alise Reicin, Merck's vice president of clinical research, was quoted in USA Today as saying that Merck did not have any human test data confirming that naproxen helped to prevent blood clotting, so the company relied on animal studies.
"Merck knowingly used animal data that they should have known was unreliable," Pippin said.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml