Word on how Merck marketed Vioxx throught clinical “studies”. Lost of chatter on this topic recently. Roy Poses provides a good place to start:
This article appears to be the first to provide evidence that pharmaceutical companies may deliberately disguise marketing efforts as clinical research. This is a real achievement, since obviously the companies involved make every effort to hide what they are doing, and it only through discovery during litigation did the facts come out.
Related posts:
- Drug company ethics and the pharmaceutical industry’s pursuit of profit
- The controversy of no-consent studies
- Imaging studies
- Robots in cardiology
- Can litigation slow medical progress?
- Secrets of the pharmaceutical industry
- Michael Moore asks Pharma the wrong questions
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
SO if the only way we get the facts is through litigation with these companies, why are physicians always trying to limit the ability of those injured to get that info?
Why don’t you guys like facts?
Right out of residency I got into one of those post-approval studies. I soon realized that it was a marketing ploy and enrolled no more patients and didn’t do that again.
Comments on this entry are closed.