Vioxx Lawsuit Help

Vioxx Lawyers

Vioxx lawyers were immediately contacted following the announcement of the Vioxx recall. For many of the two million Americans taking Vioxx when the announcement was made, as well as for former users, the news was shocking. Many people are wondering why so many researchers had been questioning the safety of Vioxx for an increased risk of heart attack and stroke for so long before Merck started a study to address the actual risks. Vioxx lawyers are notifying people of their legal rights and options in regards to Vioxx, which may end up creating major legal problems for the drug giant.

Both the FDA and Merck & Co. have been under heavy criticism following the Vioxx recall for allowing Vioxx to remain on the market for so many years before claiming they were aware of the potentially deadly effects. About 20 million Americans have used Vioxx, and the Vioxx lawyers representing potential cases are alleging the cardiovascular events suffered by their clients were the result of Merck failing to provide complete safety information and not acknowledging earlier warnings that the drug was linked to serious effects. Vioxx lawyers and regulators are also pointing fingers at the FDA, whose job it is to protect consumers from unsafe drugs before they are allowed onto the market as well as once it is on the market.

For the last several years, Vioxx safety concerns have caused sales of the blockbuster drug to even out. With worldwide sales still totaling $2.5 billion in 2003, Vioxx’s multi- billion share of the arthritis and pain relief market has created many questions for patients that Vioxx lawyers are trying to address. Many people were unaware that many researchers have been cautioning against the use of Vioxx and that Public Citizen consumer group included Vioxx on its Best Pills, Worst Pills list in 2001 warning users of a possible link to heart attacks and strokes.

Patients are becoming more and more cautious of the information they receive from the drug industry that has been spending an increasing amount of money on advertising. Even as the FDA required Merck to make a labeling change warning of the possible link to heart attacks and strokes in April 2002, Merck was spending over $100 million a year in direct-to-consumer advertising. Vioxx lawyers claim Merck continued to minimize unfavorable findings that continued to surface over the years up until a month before Vioxx was removed from the market.

An FDA researcher, Dr. David Graham, concluded high doses of Vioxx should not be prescribed or used because a study found it tripled risks of heart attacks and sudden cardiac death when compared to patients on a rival medication Celebrex. Merck issued an August 26, 2004 press release refuting Graham’s study saying, “Merck stands behind the efficacy, overall safety and cardiovascular safety of Vioxx.” Currently, the investigative arm of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, is investigating the FDA’s handling of Vioxx and of Graham’s report, which was met with resistance, according to Graham. Vioxx lawyers point out that it is not the first time the FDA has been accused of silencing internal staffers finding links between drugs and adverse effects.

Merck has been questioned as to why earlier safety measures were not taken when study results indicated a possible risk of cardiovascular events might be linked to Vioxx years earlier. Vioxx lawyers are expected to argue that Merck’s earlier 2000 study results found a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular problems in Vioxx users when compared to naproxen and that Merck then failed to study Vioxx’s effects when compared to a placebo. When asked why the company did not take recall measures in 2000 after Merck’s initial study, the company president claimed adequate conclusions could not be drawn since the study did not include comparisons to a placebo.

For more information on the Vioxx recall, please contact us to confer with a Vioxx lawyer.

Back to Top ^