Sept. 12, 2006: Studies Raise New Vioxx Questions
The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reports the results of recent studies suggesting that health risks associated with Vioxx use may be worse than previous research indicated — including evidence of kidney problems, and signs that use of the painkiller causes an immediate increased risk of heart attack or stroke (rather than health risks after 18 months of use, as was previously suggested by Vioxx manufacturer Merck & Co., Inc.). Vioxx was withdrawn from the marketplace in September 2004.
I realize that this is from 2006, but if JAMA can find additional side effects 2 years after VIOXX was taken off the market, again, what will they find in 5, 10, 15 years?
Could Merck be pushing this “Release” because they are afraid that in another 5 years, the researchers/scientists are going to find out that VIOXX had effects until 20 years after you stop taking it?
I recently heard (AEI Conference, held in January, 2008) that there are currently 6-8 states that have a 6-year statute of limitations to file their claims against Merck. They (Merck) are hoping to get rid of all the plaintiffs who were bound by a 3-year statute of limitations, so that they can be ready for any and all other claims from these other states, as well as from the other countries they are facing (Canada, England, Australia, etc.). If we, the current plaintiffs, sign and agree to this Release, they will use us as an example to these other countries that the claims were from people just trying to make a buck and that they didn‘t do anything wrong.
If they didn‘t do anything wrong then why are they so bound and determined to get rid of the current plaintiffs as quickly as possible. As I have stated in my other posts, the reasons are pretty clear. THEY DID DO SOMETHING WRONG, but won‘t/don‘t want to admit their liability for our current/future medical problems.
For more information go to VPEG
Tags: lawsuits, Merck, settlement, vioxx
