6 ms·

This number is likely too high by a factor of 10, and there are more reliable sources. Derek Lowe's rebuttal to the article is here: https://www.science.org/co

This number is likely too high by a factor of 10, and there are more reliable sources. Derek Lowe's rebuttal to the article is here: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/500-000-excess-deaths-vioxx-where https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/500-000-excess-dea... and a medical press article from 2019 estimates 60,000 excess deaths: https://www.statnews.com/2019/10/09/vioxx-relaunched-treat-hemophilia-rare-disease/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/10/09/vioxx-relaunched-treat-h...

whatshisface 3y ago
[flagged]
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  [flagged]
- jandrese 3y ago
  Also, it helps to mostly kill old people who are already sick. It makes it much harder for people to notice. Your drug might have killed them, but chances are they were going to die in the next 6 months anyway so the death didn't stand out. It also makes the death toll hard to tally.
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    65 is really not so old that anyone's likely to die in the next 6 months.
- mometsi 3y ago
  Some people might react to your mass murder with an even less reductive and hostile response. e.g.: Suppose there were another drug developed in secret, an anti-vioxx. It reduces your risk of all-causes mortality by a fraction of a percent. But it has these side effects: 1. Chronic pain. It's with you as long as you're taking your anti-vioxx and lets you know it's working. 2. Joint stiffness, often debilitating and sometimes leaving you practically chair-bound. Would you take it? Should everyone take it? Should everyone be legally mandated to take it?
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    To make it a better mirror image, let's add a couple details to your anti-vioxx example: anti-Merck has hidden all the evidence of chronic pain and joint stiffness as side-effects, and taking it once will cause them permanently. The anti-FDA has approved the drug under fraudulent conditions as they lack the information that anti-Merck has. The drug is widely prescribed and now between 50 and 500 thousand (the exact number is not known due to poor reporting methods) people have new chronic joint pain. Should anyone go to anti-jail? ;) (The latter condition was necessary to simulate the lack of knowledge patients had about their increased mortality, obviously difficult to reproduce in pain.)
    - l33t7332273 3y ago
      I’m pretty confused with all this backwards talk. Can you be a little more clear about what actually happened?
      - whatshisface 3y ago
        Merck developed a drug to serve as an aspirin alternative for arthritis sufferers. Somewhere along the line, they discovered it could kill you, but pushed the evidence under the rug because they had already invested so much. The drug went on to get FDA approval (a process highly dependent on studies conducted by the manufacturer seeking approval, such that they had the opportunity to commit the fraud), and in the end between 50-500k individuals got heart attacks and other deadly consequences as a result of taking the highly prescribed painkiller.
      - Spooky23 3y ago
        Vioxx was like a super-NSAID. I took it for month in my 20s with a degenerative disc. It was incredible, eliminating chronic pain and inflammation. It allowed me to function normally, sleep, etc. The problem is, it causes heart attacks, especially if you are at risk for having a heart attack. The key study showed a 5x higher rate of heart attack for Vioxx users vs Naproxen.
  - dylan604 3y ago
rossdavidh 3y ago
From Lowe's article: "I do not see the effects that Unz is talking about. Not at all. A single-cause change in the death rate of the magnitude that he's proposing should most certainly show up in these figures (particularly the latter chart), but it isn't there. I see no reason to take this claim seriously." Note that Derek Lowe has been more than willing to be critical of big pharmaceutical companies when they deserve it, on other issues, and he's a professional with decades of experience in the field.

whatshisface 3y ago

[flagged]

bugglebeetle 3y ago
[flagged]
jandrese 3y ago
Also, it helps to mostly kill old people who are already sick. It makes it much harder for people to notice. Your drug might have killed them, but chances are they were going to die in the next 6 months anyway so the death didn't stand out. It also makes the death toll hard to tally.
- whatshisface 3y ago
  65 is really not so old that anyone's likely to die in the next 6 months.
mometsi 3y ago
Some people might react to your mass murder with an even less reductive and hostile response. e.g.: Suppose there were another drug developed in secret, an anti-vioxx. It reduces your risk of all-causes mortality by a fraction of a percent. But it has these side effects: 1. Chronic pain. It's with you as long as you're taking your anti-vioxx and lets you know it's working. 2. Joint stiffness, often debilitating and sometimes leaving you practically chair-bound. Would you take it? Should everyone take it? Should everyone be legally mandated to take it?
- whatshisface 3y ago
  To make it a better mirror image, let's add a couple details to your anti-vioxx example: anti-Merck has hidden all the evidence of chronic pain and joint stiffness as side-effects, and taking it once will cause them permanently. The anti-FDA has approved the drug under fraudulent conditions as they lack the information that anti-Merck has. The drug is widely prescribed and now between 50 and 500 thousand (the exact number is not known due to poor reporting methods) people have new chronic joint pain. Should anyone go to anti-jail? ;) (The latter condition was necessary to simulate the lack of knowledge patients had about their increased mortality, obviously difficult to reproduce in pain.)
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    I’m pretty confused with all this backwards talk. Can you be a little more clear about what actually happened?
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Merck developed a drug to serve as an aspirin alternative for arthritis sufferers. Somewhere along the line, they discovered it could kill you, but pushed the evidence under the rug because they had already invested so much. The drug went on to get FDA approval (a process highly dependent on studies conducted by the manufacturer seeking approval, such that they had the opportunity to commit the fraud), and in the end between 50-500k individuals got heart attacks and other deadly consequences as a result of taking the highly prescribed painkiller.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      Vioxx was like a super-NSAID. I took it for month in my 20s with a degenerative disc. It was incredible, eliminating chronic pain and inflammation. It allowed me to function normally, sleep, etc. The problem is, it causes heart attacks, especially if you are at risk for having a heart attack. The key study showed a 5x higher rate of heart attack for Vioxx users vs Naproxen.
- dylan604 3y ago

rossdavidh 3y ago

From Lowe's article: "I do not see the effects that Unz is talking about. Not at all. A single-cause change in the death rate of the magnitude that he's proposing should most certainly show up in these figures (particularly the latter chart), but it isn't there. I see no reason to take this claim seriously." Note that Derek Lowe has been more than willing to be critical of big pharmaceutical companies when they deserve it, on other issues, and he's a professional with decades of experience in the field.