Vioxx Zu Risiken und Nebenwirkungen ...

Once over two billion dollars in annual sales: the painkiller Vioxx © Henry Leutwyler
The victim does not look like a victim. The great man, who asks in his Hamburg flat looks elegant, healthy and determined. Frank B. is 69 and what is called spry at that age. The heart attack three years ago has left no traces, externally. B. says: "I feel good compared to others." He speaks in a sonorous voice, quick wit and precision. In the afternoon we will go to Sylt, he still has to tackle. By the infarct three years ago he did not come earlier life lost, like so many others who took the painkiller Vioxx and were sick. Many can since her heart attack and stroke no longer work. To some it is the partner died. Lives as comfortable with his wife in Hamburg-Blankenese, fine upholstery, beautiful view, economical draped in memory of the top job in India.
Found in ... SternIssue 41/2007
He does not want to leave the matter to rest, it can not. The infarction was there, in 2004, he has been frightened, he has reduced his life expectancy, and he did not come from somewhere. B. is certain that the drug Vioxx has caused him to him. He then took a pill every day. He had no idea what the manufacturer had since long been know that Vioxx may seem risky, it multiplies the risk for thrombosis, heart attacks, strokes. That, at worst, kill. There is some peculiarity in the case of Frank B. An - delicious - is that he himself is a pharmacist and worked until retirement in the management of a pharmaceutical company in Hamburg. "Actually, I set the industry have some sympathy." The image of his profession has become cracked. Took as a lawyer, not any. Andreas Schulz from Berlin hangs like in sensational cases, even in seemingly hopeless. Like the "La Belle" process to the attack of a disco in Berlin in 1986, Libya was behind the bomb at the end and paid $ 35 million to the victims. Or grotesque, as to the alleged Sexposse Thomas Borer-Fielding, ex-ambassador of Switzerland. He sued the tabloids - and later got a million in damages. Thanks Schulz.Frank B. wants to see those responsible to justice - he wants punishment
For three years, Schulz is now tuned to Vioxx, a big thing, the enemy has it all: the U.S. pharmaceutical giant Merck and its German subsidiary, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Haar near Munich headquarters. Vioxx, drug rofecoxib, was at the turn of the century a very prosperous new, because stomach gentle remedy for joint pain, until the end of September 2004, it consolidated from the market worldwide. Voluntary, they say, Merck and MSD, utmost precaution. Since then it goes to thousands of lawsuits in the U.S. and the rest of the world about whether that's true whether so or not Merck's researchers in 1997, but knew no later than the beginning of 2000 that Vioxx may increase the risk for thrombosis, heart attacks and strokes significantly. According to calculations by the Cologne Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and the Scientific Institute of the Army may have become ill or died in Germany alone 2001-2004 at least 7091 people by Vioxx.
But so far the manufacturer has all attempts to sue him in Germany, as a dog thrown off the water. So Schulz has been waiting for. He has looked at the failures of others, and collected 900 cases. He has made wind in the press, but not complaining. But now he had to. On 30 September, three years after withdrawal, are all in Germany claims that Vioxx victims can make the statute of limitations. For months, Schulz prepared the complaints, 67 were there, he says, in any case, only those which he considers to be promising. Most of its claimants for relief from their suffering, to compensation for pain and suffering, consolation. Frank B. but wants to see those responsible to justice. He has against the former executives of Merck also filed a complaint for assault. He wants punishment.It lasted until the old packs were off the market
His personal "event", it means the medical community, was a rear wall infarctions of the heart, which is on 24 Had disguised September 2004, against four clock as abdominal pain, bloating and nausea. Pushed as the first symptoms of a corrupt walnut, which he had eaten. A week later, but was recalled Vioxx, the drug, which he swallowed daily. Only, this is the specialty of his next event: B. had no pain - he participated in a recent large clinical trials Vioxx. They ran only a few months. The pain reliever should have a more profitable activity and prevent prostate cancer. Merck and MSD were out of the box office, annual sales over two billion dollars to make an even bigger hit. The study was called "VIP", should run for six years and include 15,000 men worldwide aged 50 to 75 years.
In retrospect, Frank B. is appalled that Merck MSD and the test at that point yet ventured. For in the early summer of 2004 when, in the study got in, was the suspicion that Vioxx might be dangerous, the longest in the world, but not where it belonged: in the advertising of pharmaceutical representatives, in the journals of family doctors, the leaflet . There was suffered side effects: "Individual cases: myocardial infarction (not shown causation)." The bracket remark was indeed deleted in May 2004. But it took until the old packs were off the market. "Isolated cases" means less than one case among 10,000. It was at that time the company for four years before the results of a study that "Vigor" and was "designed" the Merck researchers themselves had: 4,047 people with arthritis had taken Vioxx, 4029 other conventional pain killers naproxen. The stomach friendliness of Vioxx should be proved. Was it too. But also came out: In Vioxx twice as many subjects were thromboses, infarctions or strokes, as in the comparison group. Statistically were 1,000 people suffer a heart attack up to 10. And that, although patients were excluded with heart risks even from the study.Vioxx increases the risk for heart attacks, according to FDA by three times
In internal e-mails, wrote that Merck's researchers, the events "are clearly there," they were based on the mode of action of Vioxx. It was "very unfortunate". Outwardly, they found a better explanation: Vioxx was not a problem, but naproxen is a blessing. He acted under "cardioprotective", protect the cardiovascular system. The Food and Drug Supervision FDA had warned Merck about these "misleading" advertising - in September 2001. The doctors who prescribed Vioxx were, with the FDA of Merck's conflict with anything. Independent researchers have been critical of Vioxx sued Merck. When his urologist in early 2004 asked him if he wanted to join the trial, Frank B. had no qualms about. He believed himself a man know about the subject. "Vioxx was an incredible success story." The urologist he was under observation in 2004 because of his prostate, "as that's just at that age." Otherwise saw the doctor no reason to then exclude 65-year-olds in the study, as was considered healthy: The slightly elevated blood pressure was on medication adjusted again normal, the condition of his coronary arteries was "age-typical good and without sclerosis" was. He walked a lot, swam like not smoking. And signed the informed consent eleven pages long.