merck

Not sure if this has been covered yet or not, but it seems Merck has been caught giving itself favorable coverage in its own phony and supposedly peer-reviewed medical journal. http://blog.bioethics.net/2009/05/merck-makes-phony-peerreview-journal/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a5z.VogSbbXo&refer=home On the way home from work yesterday they talked about this on NPR. How can we have any faith in big pharmaceutical when they behave like this? I knew they were strictly profit motivated, but this takes the cake.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0946228920080410?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 More fun facts about vaccines. The article make the good point that many countries don't vaccinate, so while people are completely silly to avoid vaccination, statistically they are a small part of...

From the Reuter's article ...

I don't know if this will give any comfort to those who had a hissy fit over the first Vioxx case verdict ($253 million to the plaintiff, but in reality $26 million plus interest), but for what it's worth, Merck is now 1-1. Interesting comments from attorney Mark Lanier about "dirty hands"...

Memo In Question: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2005-02/16191308.pdf Idiot Media take...typical http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vaccine8feb08,0,624328.story?coll=la-home-headlines NO, the memo says that in 6 months worth of shots the kids would get 87 times the recommended...