Need I remind you of the Bayer case, in which the FDA knowingly approved the sale of H.i.V infected Factorate first to Americans, then shipped it over seas after Lawyers in American stopped the sale? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY

Then there’s the Vioxx Tragedy - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4560812498287717332&q=vioxx&hl=en

They continue to turn a blind eye to Aspartame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n-gA0wvi84

I also ask, do you think the recent poising of Pet Food, right before the passing of the new Senate Bill S.1082 - is a coincidence? The Bill was introduced months before the contamination, and the pet deaths came at an awfully convenient time for Big Pharma now didn’t it?
http://www.rense.com/general76/fers.htm

Misc:
http://www.lightparty.com/Health/GENOCIDE.html
http://www.mgwater.com/fda_mot.shtml

Between Vioxx and Avandia there are many dead americans. How about the new vaccine for cervical cancer when will we find out its not safe and it kills people?

Phen Phen, Vioxx, Redux, the list goes on and on. Oh and a "doctor’s" answer to treating a heroin addiction is with methadone. LOL! another addictive drug. This is what Anna-Nicole Smith died from. I believe her son died from it too.

They are more like doctors of death.

Age 78, fond of playing Badminton, but knees are giving me much pain. I have tried things llike glucosomine without much success. Vioxx did help, but it is now off the market.

Why do they only include 2 viral types of the many that cause cancer and include 2 types that only cause warts. Likely they will come out with a complete vaccine that coincides with the date the current vaccine comes off patent. Thanks again Merck for leaving out the Vioxx data and lying to the public and Doctors.
as far as my credentials go I went to medical school and residency and am Board certified. With lisences to practive medicine in several states. Its important for all the chemistry posters to realize there are 4 viral types in the current vaccine 2 are for cancer and 2 are for warts. I am saying substitute cancer causing types for the wart types that are currently in the vaccine. I like the posts we have because they explain to me why americans get what they deserve from drug companies.

Why do they only include 2 viral types of the many that cause cancer and include 2 types that only cause warts. Likely they will come out with a complete vaccine that coincides with the date the current vaccine comes off patent. Thanks again Merck for leaving out the Vioxx data and lying to the public and Doctors.
Its important for all the chemistry posters to realize there are 4 viral types in the current vaccine 2 are for cancer and 2 are for warts. I am saying substitute cancer causing types for the wart types that are currently in the vaccine.
Dear wondering since you are clearly so knowledgable about this would you care to wager whether or not 7 or more valent vaccines will come out in the next 7-10 yrs?? Its fun to be a stooge for Merck but put your money where your mouth is. I know this is coming and would bet alot of money with anyone.
thanks michael for reposting your answer I reposted in the health section because I felt maybe that was a more accurate categorization for the question. As to your answer specifically: my issue is this if they put in the vaccine only certain virus types specifically the nonpathologic ones do you feel they are in some measure responsible for the cancers they could have prevented?

pharmaceutical drugs that have killed thousands of people, yet focuses almost exclusively on exposing alternative medicine and nutritional/herbal supplements? Dr Barrett(who runs Quackwatch) similarly doesn’t mention anything about all the deaths caused by NSAIDs(non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) or other over-prescribed, wrongly prescribed or overused pharmaceutical drugs that kill thousands every year. While I think he does an excellent job of exposing all the fraud and quackery in alternative medicine(just about all of it is either useless or unproven), why does he very rarely, if ever warn people about certain dangerous pharmaceutical drugs(I’m not saying all drugs are harmful) that harm or kill far more people than alternative medicine? http://www.quackwatch.com/
While I think you make good points, and I highly value the information Dr Barrett puts on his site(although just about all of it consists of, what are to me, obvious scams and obvious quackery), I still think his mission would be better served or his credibility greatly improved if he did include occasional warnings about mainstream drugs and treatments that do not work. By NOT doing this, he allows alternative practitioners and critics of science-based medicine to score easy points against him, when they can point out "I warned you about Vioxx and Dr Barrett didn’t, so who do you trust?".
Again, I am not a believer in alternative medicine, yet Barrett and Quackwatch kind of give the impression that mainstream medicine is perfect, mainstream medicine is always right, alternative medicine is always wrong. This is too simplistic, even though science-based medicine is what I use and believe in, all the while I know it isn’t perfect, it is flawed, doctors and drug manufacturers make mistakes(or hide negative results)that end up killing people every year, among other things.
One other thing that gets me is that whenever a massive fraud is uncovered when it comes to drug research, or some drug is exposed as being very dangerous, so many doctors express a lot of "shock" over this. I’m not sure if this shock is real or if they are putting on an act, because as a non-medical layperson, I’m never shocked by the fraud that occasionally happens in medicine and drug research. Certainly, science-based medicine is peer-reviewed and self-correcting(ideally anyway), unlike alternative medicine, but I think some doctors would better serve the public by looking more closely into the studies behind the drugs they use, rather than attacking certain alternative therapies that are useless but otherwise harmless. Note I am not saying they shouldn’t be putting down alt-med quackery, but they give the false impression that all the dangers are in alt-med, not in mainstream med, yet mainstream med kills by orders of many magnitude far more people than alt-med.
As a big-believer, and supporter of science-based medicine, I think Quackwatch inadvertently plays into the hands of alternative medicine pushers who can always point to Barrett and Quackwatch as always dropping the ball when it comes to dangerous mainstream drugs and treatments. I want Quackwatch to improve its credibility among those who rush to alternative medicine because it was their alt-med guru who warned them about Vioxx first. Similarly, Barrett makes no concessions to those few instances where certain things once considered alternative do have some science in support of them, like a few herbals for instance. It wouldn’t be a sign of weakness if he did this(it would, to me, be the opposite), and the fact that he doesn’t makes him seem like a unquestioning shill for the pharmaceutical companies which while they do not fund him, do fund the American Council of Science and Health, of which he is an adviser.

Or should it all be left up to corporate America whether some drug is safe enough (Vioxx) some toy is OK for your kid (toys with lead paint) or some food is suitable for consumption (has E.coli in it, etc)?

Taking an aspirin every day is nearly as risky as working as a firefighter.

For 50-year-old men, taking a daily aspirin (which many do to help prevent heart disease and strokes) increases the risk of death by the equivalent of 10.4 deaths per 100,000 men per year.

This is similar to the added risk that professional firefighters face. Firefighters have an added risk of 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people per year, compared to 3.9 for all occupations and 0.4 for office workers.

In comparison, drugs that have been withdrawn from the market, such as the painkiller Vioxx and the multiple sclerosis drug Tysabri, increased the risk of death by 76 deaths per 100,000 people per year and 65 deaths per 100,000 people per year, respectively.
Epidemiological data suggest that 25% of non-fatal myocardial infarctions are silent. 4 5 As aspirin, even at low doses, is an analgesic and because it may provoke dyspepsia, which may create confusion about the cause of chest pain, it is not difficult to believe that aspirin could increase the proportion of silent events from 25% to 30%. This could explain all the benefits of antiplatelet agents on non-fatal myocardial in the meta-analysis. Aspirin increased the risk of sudden death in every long-term study after myocardial infarction that reported such events. This increase was from 4.4% on placebo to 5.6% on aspirin in the persantine-aspirin reinfarction (PARIS) study; from 2.0% to 2.7% in the aspirin myocardial infarction study (AMIS); and from 2.0% to 2.4% in the persantine-aspirin reinfarction study (PARIS-II).9
This could reflect an increased risk of sudden death among concealed, and therefore untreated, events.
I guess stats and research are poison if you choose not to agree with them. Right Mary?

they do have incomes and there are tax write offs for donations of sorts and they are succeptable. they offer a product, market it, and defend product recalls in court (ie. child molesting priests) that its consumers buy with the belief that those actions are not part of the package that they give money to. if merck had said vioxx will kill half of you and help the other half and where allowed to continue to stock shelves with their product, they would face unsurmountable taxations where they would no longer find it profitable to continue producing the drug.