The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published a correction "to make it completely clear" to their readers that 18 months of Vioxx use is not necessary to increase heart risks.
Heart risks from the painkiller, which was withdrawn from the market because of these concerns, can occur with just three months of use.
The correction could have major implications for the 13,000 lawsuits that allege Vioxx caused heart damage. One of the key defenses that Merck & Co., Vioxx's maker, has used thus far was that the drug did not cause damage if the patient only used it for a few months.
"Misinterpretation of the Data"
The journal's correction refers to an article previously published regarding Vioxx as a potential cancer treatment. The study's results prompted Merck to voluntarily withdraw the drug because it could "double the risk of heart attacks and strokes after 18 months of daily use."
The executive editor at the NEJM says that this is actually a "misinterpretation of the data," as heart risks are possible in much less time.
Previously, the journal also published an "expression of concern" regarding a separate Vioxx study, which reportedly failed to report all heart problems, thereby minimizing Vioxx risks.
The New England Journal of Medicine is generally recognized as one of the leading medical journals in the world. Their published correction of the study that got Vioxx off the market directly contradicts Merck's position that Vioxx only hurts those that took the drug for more than 18 months, and will aid those that have filed suit against Merck.
Apparently Merck's evil marketing geniuses used deceptive statistical analysis to manipulate the data to support their position. Merck finally admitted that they misidentified the statistical methodology that it used in the study and said it discovered the mistake last month.
If you believe that one, you are really too far gone.
The Wall Street Journal believes that the correction could be a boon for those who have sued Merck, as this point was a cornerstone in Merck's defense. They persisted in stating that the drug could not damage anyone that had been on it for less than 18 months.
To date Merck has lost three cases and won three cases. In two of the cases that Merck won the individuals had taken the drug less than 18 months.
This would certainly seem like a very good sign and further evidence that Merck will get its just desserts. This could very well be the beginning of the end for conventional medicine as I predicted two years ago.
This is especially true as we get ready to launch the new Mercola.com, which will allow you to actively participate and help identify the truths of health. It is something like Amzon.com book reviews on steroids, and you will find incredible value in it.
I have never been so excited about any project I have ever been involved in, as I really think this has the chance to have a major impact on the world. I hope to launch it sometime this fall.