Can Merck be Trusted After Vioxx?

Can Merck be Trusted on Gardasil After the Vioxx Scandal?

Clinical trials for Gardasil were carried out exclusively by Merck, the manufacturer of the HPV vaccine. This is standard in the industry, but consumer advocates, members of academia, doctors, and editors from medical journals have been raising concerns for decades about bias, conflicts of interest, manipulation and concealment of study outcomes in industry-sponsored clinical trials.

Based on Merck’s handling of its drug Vioxx, the allegations that now surround Gardasil and its link to severe side effects deserve careful attention.

The Merck Vioxx Litigation

Merck introduced Vioxx to the U.S. market in 1999 as an effective, safer, alternative to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of pain associated with osteoarthritis. But Vioxx quickly became embroiled in scandal and was withdrawn from the market in 2004 after the drug was found to increase the risk of cardiovascular side effects (heart attacks and stroke).

According to the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market was “the largest prescription-drug withdrawal in history, but had the many warning signs along the way been heeded, such a debacle could have been prevented.”

In an article published in the BMJ, internal documents and communications obtained from Merck during the Vioxx litigation revealed that Merck scientists internally acknowledged the existence of Vioxx’s risks very early on. Specifically, the medical journal reported that:

“Since the early development of [Vioxx], some scientists at Merck were concerned that the drug might adversely affect the cardiovascular system … In internal emails made public through litigation, Merck officials sought to soften the academic authors’ interpretation [of the data]. The academic authors changed the manuscript at Merck’s request [to make less of the apparent risk] …”

Despite Merck’s knowledge of the risk, the drug maker never conducted the necessary studies designed to evaluate cardiovascular risk. When the results of Merck’s Vioxx gastrointestinal outcomes research (VIGOR) study were circulated internally, the company’s chief scientist wrote in an email to colleagues about the cardiovascular risk:

“It is a shame but [the cardiovascular risk] is a low incident and it is mechanism based as we worried it was. [Merck employees and consultants] were right …”

This indicates that, at the very least, there were grounds for Merck to suspect Vioxx was associated with cardiovascular disease before the VIGOR study was published. Despite concern from Merck’s chief scientist, the published VIGOR study “obscured the cardiovascular risk associated with [Vioxx] in several ways,” according to the BMJ.

Plaintiffs in the Gardasil litigation allege Merck engaged in similar conduct relative to Gardasil.

According to documents uncovered in the Vioxx litigation, Merck orchestrated the publication of numerous papers ghostwritten by medical communications companies and company employees and recruited academic key opinion leaders to be the lead authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. And, to combat opposition, Merck selectively targeted doctors who raised questions about Vioxx, going so far as pressuring some of them through department chairs.

“Sadly, it is clear to me that Merck’s commercial interest in [Vioxx] sales exceeded its concern about the drug’s potential cardiovascular toxicity,” wrote Dr. Eric J. Topol in the NEJM.

Merck Vioxx Conduct Led to Expression of Concern

Merck’s conduct surrounding Vioxx was so concerning that the NEJM editors, in an “Expression of Concern” about a study published in the journal, wrote that “[t]hese myocardial infarctions, all in the [Vioxx] group, were not included in the data submitted to the Journal.” The Expression of Concern further reads:

“It now appears, however, from a memorandum dated July 5, 2000, that was obtained by subpoena in the Vioxx litigation and made available to the Journal, that at least two of the authors knew about the three additional myocardial infarctions at least two weeks before the authors submitted the first of two revisions and 4 ½ months before publication of the article. Given this memorandum, it appears that there was ample time to include the data on these three additional infarctions in the article.”

In “Expression of Concern Reaffirmed,” the NEJM editors further wrote that exclusion of data in the published article led to “conclusions regarding the safety of [Vioxx that] were misleading.”

Similarities Between Gardasil Allegations and the Merck Vioxx Scandal?

Clinical trials and regulatory oversight “often fail to uncover important adverse effects for widely marketed products,” wrote Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim and Dr. Jerry Avorn in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). This was certainly the case in the Merck Vioxx scandal, and attorneys in the Gardasil litigation allege Merck’s conduct surrounding the Gardasil controversy is similar.

According to a case study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) regarding the Vioxx scandal:

“Internal documents made public in litigation revealed that a Merck marketing team had developed a strategy … to skew the results of clinical trials in the drug’s favor. As part of the strategy, scientists manipulated the trial design by comparing the drug to [Aleve, another pain reliever] rather than to a placebo.”

One of the key allegations in the Gardasil litigation is that Merck applied similar strategies during and after the Gardasil clinical trials. There are serious flaws in how Merck designed, analyzed, and reported its Gardasil studies, according to a number of academics and members of the medical community. In particular, in 2013, several medical professionals published an article in the British Medical Journal outlining the flaws and incomplete nature of the publications discussing Merck’s Gardasil clinical trials:

“[P]articipants in the control arm of these trials did not receive an inert substance, such as saline injection. Instead, they received an injection containing amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate (AAHS), a proprietary adjuvant system that is used in Gardasil to boost immune response.”

Another similarity: Merck did not accurately report many Gardasil adverse reactions, much like the company did with the cardiovascular risks associated with Vioxx. Instead of reporting the Gardasil adverse events, Merck categorized many of the more serious reactions as “new medical conditions” unrelated to the HPV vaccine. Nearly half of the study participants reported a “new medical condition,” which included high rates of neurological, musculoskeletal, and autoimmune conditions.

With respect to Vioxx, Drs. Kesselheim and Avorn wrote that Merck had worked to “diminish the impact of reported cardiovascular adverse effects” associated with Vioxx “by not publishing adverse events and failing to include complete data on myocardial infarctions that occurred during a key clinical trial.”

Researchers in the BMJ similarly wrote in 2007 that published studies of Vioxx obscured safety risks and that Merck “had influence over all aspects, including data analysis, safety monitoring, and reporting.”

Plaintiffs in the Gardasil litigation make similar allegations.

Protect Your Rights – Retain a Gardasil Lawyer and Pursue Legal Action Against Merck

The law firm of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman represents individuals harmed by the HPV vaccine Gardasil. Our Gardasil lawsuits allege the clinical trials that Merck conducted for Gardasil were flagrantly deceptive and unscientific. As a result, thousands of young men and women (Gardasil is also FDA-approved for males) have experienced dangerous adverse events, including death.

If you or a family member has suffered from Gardasil side effects, contact us or call (855) 948-5098.

  • Paxil Pediatric Class Action $63 Million
  • Third-Party Payer Class Action $40 Million
  • Defective Drug Class Action $28 Million
  • Celexa-Lexapro Pediatric Class Action $10 Million
  • Drug Injury $9 Million
  • Pharmaceutical Settlement $105 Million
  • Best Law Firms 2021
    Best Law Firms 2021

    The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

  • National Trial Lawyers Top 100
    National Trial Lawyers Top 100

    The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 recognized the law firms of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, the Miller Firm and Audet & Partners with the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award (in the Mass Torts category) for their work in the groundbreaking case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Company.

  • California Powerhouse
    California Powerhouse

    Law360 recognizes law firms that have a strong regional presence, working on important matters within their home state. “[Baum Hedlund] possesses a David v. Goliath-sized slingshot while seeking justice for everyday citizens it believes were harmed or killed through corporate wrongdoing.”

  • Elite Trial Lawyers
    Elite Trial Lawyers

    NLJ and American Lawyer Media honor law firms and attorneys as Elite Trial Lawyers for their cutting-edge legal work on behalf of plaintiffs in practice areas ranging from mass torts to securities litigation.

  • Listed in Best Lawyers
    Listed in Best Lawyers

    Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers.

  • AV Top Ranked Law Firm
    AV Top Ranked Law Firm

    Less than one-half of one percent of firms across the nation have achieved this ranking. A firm must have a high percentage of lawyers who have achieved the prestigious AV® Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell®.

  • Verdicts Hall of Fame
    Verdicts Hall of Fame

    The National Law Journal inducted Baum Hedlund into the Verdicts Hall of Fame for obtaining the $2 billion landmark verdict in the Roundup cancer case of Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto. The verdict was #1 in California and #2 in the U.S. in 2019 and is #9 in American history.

  • Super Lawyers
    Super Lawyers

    Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

  • AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated
    AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated

    An AV® rating reflects an attorney who has reached the heights of professional excellence. The rating signifies the highest legal ability, and very high adherence to professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability, and diligence.

  • Board Certified Attorneys
    Board Certified Attorneys

    The National Board of Trial Advocacy is one of the nation’s largest and oldest private board-certification organizations for attorneys. Two of our shareholders are certified in multiple specialties.

  • Top Jury Verdict in <br> CA and USA
    Top Jury Verdict in
    CA and USA

    TopVerdict.com ranks our $2 billion verdict in Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto as the biggest verdict in California and the second largest verdict in the U.S. in 2019. It is the ninth largest verdict in U.S. history.

  • Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers
    Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers

    Published annually, the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list recognizes the “best of the best” in this area of the law through nominations, research, and review by a board of their peers.

  • Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum
    Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum

    Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum is one of the most prestigious groups of trial lawyers in the United States.  Membership is limited to attorneys who have won million and multi-million-dollar verdicts and settlements.

  • Product Liability Practice Group of the Year
    Product Liability Practice Group of the Year

    In 2020, Law360 honored the law firms ”behind the litigation wins and major deals that resonated throughout the legal industry.” It recognized our success in several landmark cases.

  • Top Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California
    Top Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California

    In 2018, our $289 million Johnson v. Monsanto verdict was the largest personal injury verdict in California. TopVerdict.com also ranked it #2 among all verdicts in California and #10 in the nation.

  • Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers
    Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers

    The Bar Register is the definitive guide to the most distinguished law firms in America. It includes only those select law practices that have earned the highest rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and have been designated by their colleagues as preeminent in their field.

/

Firm Reviews

What Our Clients Are Saying
  • I Can’t Imagine a Better Law Firm

    “Multiple lawyers recommended Baum Hedlund to me and I have been consistently impressed with the quality of their work.”

    - Best Law Firms Survey
  • They Are About Changing the Systems...

    “Baum Hedlund are not only amazing attorneys but more importantly, they are activists. They are about changing the systems which got us into trouble in the first place. They understand their role in the process of making change.”

    - Kim Witczak
  • Top Legal Minds in the Country

    “The Baum, Hedlund firm has some of the top legal minds in the country; they are driven, determined, trustworthy, ethical and passionate.”

    - From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms
  • Diligent & Professional Representation

    “Thanks to your efforts I was able to recover from a tragic experience and turn my life around for the best.”

    - W.T.
  • Our Best Interest Was Always Number One on Your List

    “A special thank you to your Spanish-speaking staff for the extra effort put into this case. The language barrier was never a problem, and we are so very thankful to them. Your name holds much respect in our family.”

    - G.C. & C.C
/

Contact Us

  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter the age of the patient.
  • Please enter the age of the patient now.
  • Please enter your symptoms.
  • Please describe your experience.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please enter your primary phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your city.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter your zip code.
    This isn't a valid zip cide.
  • Please make a selection.