Merck's self-commissioned Vioxx report:
REPORT EXCERPTS
• Critics contend that senior officials at Merck knowingly put patients at risk of cardiovascular events rather than jeopardize the profits that Merck generated from the sale of Vioxx. After an exhaustive investigation, we have concluded that there is no basis for such a claim.
• On the basis of our exhaustive review of the record, we have concluded that, prior to receipt of the APPROVe Trial cardiovascular results, none of the senior scientists at MRL [Merck Research Laboratories] believed that Vioxx was prothrombotic. Indeed, we were told by numerous witnesses, including [former research chief] Dr. Scolnick, [research chief] Dr. Kim and [former CEO] Mr. Gilmartin, that they, or their family members, were taking Vioxx up until the day that it was withdrawn from the market.
• To say that no senior scientists at Merck believed that Vioxx was prothrombotic before receiving cardiovascular data from the APPROVe Trial is not to endorse every action that Merck employees took with respect to Vioxx. For example … in January 2001, Merck senior management received a letter from an academic scientist who criticized the manner in which Merck employees had treated other academic scientists who were critical of Merck and Vioxx. Merck senior management investigated the alleged conduct of the Merck official and took steps to ensure that it would not be repeated. ...
• The convictions of Merck personnel concerning the safety of Vioxx are underscored in some instances by their personal use of the drug right up until the day that it was withdrawn. At the same time, MRL scientists understood that, given that the science was new and developing, it was impossible to know with certainty that Vioxx (or any selective Cox-2 inhibitor) posed no cardiovascular risk. It is in this context that one must evaluate the interaction of MRL scientists with Vioxx's scientific critics and the FDA, and the Company's marketing practices. Whether these beliefs led certain Merck officials to overreact to criticism or to ignore prudent scientific or marketing practices may be the subject of legitimate debate. However, the extensive evidence we have reviewed has convinced us that, during the period that Vioxx was marketed, no member of Merck's senior management believed that Vioxx was prothrombotic and attempted to mislead the scientific or consuming communities.
Full text at
wsj.com |
