Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Testing victory

Would Christine Peckham still be partially paralysed, visually impaired and epileptic had Vioxx been more widely tested on animals before being taken by 20m people worldwide?

Is it possible that such cases will increase in frequency if animal rights activists are emboldened by their success in closing Darley Oaks Farm despite Police 'efforts' to the contrary?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Surely the real question to be asked here is whether in their pursuit of ever increasing profits, the pharmaceutical companies are cutting corners (and costs) and not testing their products fully before releasing them on an unsuspecting public.
I think this is a far more worrying issue.

Bishop Hill said...

Evidence for your conjecture, anonymous?

Anonymous said...

I have no evidence - it's pure speculation. Presumably if there's evidence to be found Ms Peckham's lawyers will be looking for it!
Besides, what's the evidence that the injuries caused could be related in any way to the level of animal testing?

weenie said...

Hard to say really. Would testing on animals really have revealed all side effects? Should there be human volunteers for this kind of testing? How else can these products be tested? There is obviously a demand for these drugs, otherwise people wouldn't be taking them. Which is better - to suffer without the drugs, or suffer the side effects of the drugs? I don't know which I would take.

mark peckham said...

My wife Christine Peckham would not be left in the condition she is in if Merck had not have hidden the fact that people had heart attacks and strokes while the drug was tested. The evidence is on the FDA website in a memo dated 17th sept 2001. Merck did a trial - VIGOR and took 4% of the study group out because of cardiovascular risks. Out of the remaining "healthy" 96% taking Vioxx, 3% had heart attacks and strokes. According to the FDA Memo, Merck, instead of withdrawing the drug in 2001, sent out press releases confirming Vioxx was favourable for cardiovascular risks. They put money first. Merck did not cut corners - they just didn't want to reveal the deadly facts. They held back on putting these deadly side effects on their product label till 2002 and 2003. All documentation is available on FDA website - there is no hunting for evidence.