Merck Fights Vioxx Class Action Suit Brought by Insurers

March 21, 2007

  • March 21, 2007 at 1:44 am
    Lily says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Victims of the pharmaceutical company Merck:
    Are you, or one of your love ones next? If they are not made accountable you can count on it!

    Please copy — past and send this as a e-mail to very one you know, word of e-mail like word of mouth is very powerful, ask them to keep it going for the victims that can’t get justice in our courts.

    FACTS:
    New England Journal of Medicine reaffirms that Merck lied about Vioxx safety

    Three top scientists in the world Gregory D. Curfman, M.D., Stephen Morrissey, Ph.D., and Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D. are taking on Merck that has the reputation of destroying the career of anyone who has ever questioned the safety of Vioxx – a drug that has killed as many as 60,000 Americans, according to the FDA.

    FACTS:

    Dr. Eric Topol, chairman of the cardiovascular medicine department at the Cleveland Clinic, is one of the top heart doctors in the world. He also happens to be the one of those rare American doctors who is not in bed with the pharmaceutical companies.

    Dr. Topol also made another important point that shows how Merck is not disclosing the facts. According to him, Vioxx can be lethal any time after a patient starts to take the drug.
    He also blasted Merck’s argument that the company knew about the risks of the drug only in September 2004 when it decided to recall it. Dr. Topol thinks that the risks were known as early as 1999.

    FACT:

    Merck relentlessly continued its ongoing attack on Vioxx victims. In a series of statements released yesterday by the firm, Merck is treating Vioxx victims as if they are the ones who have done something wrong. Forget about even a word of apology for the deaths and injuries or even a mention of the pain caused to those who consumed its product. On the other hand, the management team of Merck went on an all-out attack against Vioxx lawyers and victims and proclaimed that it was ready to fight anyone who ends up in court with a Vioxx lawsuit.

    Lily
    LV. NV

  • March 21, 2007 at 3:51 am
    Linda says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The doctors that prescribed the Vioxx will probably also be sued.

    I was prescribed Vioxx from 1999-2001 but thankfully did not have any problems.

    Merck should be paying anyone who took their product irregardless of injury or death. They took my money and I think they should give it back!

  • March 21, 2007 at 4:36 am
    hank says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Lily,
    Your argument loses all credibility when you cite as fact 60,000 deaths due to Vioxx. Can you not imagine the absolute national hysteria from such a situation, if in fact that were true. It sounds like you have an agenda here, but you are way off base with your allegations.

  • March 22, 2007 at 2:23 am
    steve o. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Linda —

    irregardless – NOT a word
    regardless — a word
    irrespective — a word

    Merck doesn\’t owe these money grubbers one cent and i hope the lawyers for Merck squash each one of these gold diggers like little bugs.

  • March 22, 2007 at 2:34 am
    Linda says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Steve O.

    And I suppose if one of your family members died because of the use of this product, which they knew all along was flawed, you would invite Merck to the funeral. Yeah, right. You probably would be first in line to sue.

    However, thanks for the English lesson.

  • March 26, 2007 at 9:37 am
    Jewel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    —Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

    So, technically, irregardless is a word. It\’s just not a very good one.

  • July 24, 2007 at 9:09 am
    Lily says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Merck has no problem in beating up victims in court and has no compassion for the harm they have caused to thousands of people, and now they want the judge to have mercy on them, Give me brake.

    If they are not made accountable to the victims they have harmed their bottom line will always be $$$$$. And since the old mighty dollar is all they care about it is the only way to get the message thou that peoples life’s are not lab rates.

    How many times does the federal courts have to find Merck guilty of fraud and deception before they say enough is enough and order Merck to pay for all the lives they have caused death or harmed to.

    I would like to know why the federal courts are allowing Merck to tie up our courts with legal manipulations when they have already been found guilty? Or is Merck in our government pocket so we cant get any justice in the courts.

    And you wonder why you can’t get justice in the courts.
    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know how our senators are going to vote that are excepting contributions from Pharmaceutical company’s or any other company that makes sizable contributions to have senators vote in there favor.
    Their needs to be a bill passed in the house that will exclude senator from voting on
    Anything that has the public’s health at stake if she or he has accepted contributions from that company.
    Senators who weakened drug bill got millions from industry

    If this isn’t your government working against you I’d like to know what it is?

    HOW SENATORS VOTED

    The Senate voted 49-40 this week to require U.S. officials to certify the safety and effectiveness of prescription medicines imported from foreign countries. The vote effectively killed an effort to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from abroad. A “yes” vote, supported by drug makers, was a vote to adopt the certification requirement and a “no” vote was a vote to defeat it. Here are the top recipients of contributions from pharmaceutical executives and political action committees from 2001 through March, and how they voted:Senator 2001-07 contributions Vote

    Richard Burr, R-N.C. $520,694 Yes

    John Kerry, D-Mass. $304,888 Yes

    Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. $281,040 Yes

    Arlen Specter, R-Pa. $259,699 Yes

    Orrin Hatch, R-Utah $241,850 Yes

    Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa $216,599 No

    Max Baucus, D-Mont. $199,000 Yes

    Chris Dodd, D-Conn. $192,025 Did not vote

    Tom Carper, D-Del. $183,794 Yes

    Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. $174,338 Yes

    Source: USA TODAY analysis of campaign-finance data

    THIS WAS POSTED BY ecreativa media Dec. 2004

    If you have been surprised by the ferocity with which Merck has been attacking Vioxx victims, there is no need to. Merck appears more confident than ever that it will prevail in the Vioxx litigation and it does not have to apologize for Vioxx related deaths and injuries. As everyone knows, the FDA has been the best friend for Merck. From day one, FDA, which should control the drug industry, has actually come to the rescue of Merck. Now the White House is openly supporting the position taken by Merck. It may be pointed out that the Merck CEO Raymond Gilmartin (along with many others at Merck and in the pharmaceutical industry in general) has contributed enormous sums of money for President Bush and many others in Republican Party, all of whom hold important positions in the administration.

    A panel discussion that was held as part of the economic summit showed where the focus is – to take away the right of American people to file a lawsuit if a loved one gets killed by a faulty product or if someone is injured. Once this legislation is passed, Americans will literally have their rights taken away so that big corporations can do business profitably even if their products kill Americans.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*