Cases involving drugs causing side effects can be extremely difficult to prove. Going up against powerful drug companies and having to prove without a doubt that the drug was responsible for the alleged health effect can be challenging. In the case of Vioxx, the drug was recalled because of the increased risk of heart attack and stroke, which can be suffered due to various reasons.

The Vioxx recall was controversial with accusations that the drug company Merck & Co. could have pulled the drug years be fore after its own study indicated risk of heart attack and stroke. Merck has defended its actions regarding their blockbuster drug Vioxx. Vioxx attorneys were immediately contacted following the removal announcement for side effects now believed to have been the result of taking the drug. An estimated 20 million people in the U.S. alone have used Vioxx. A Vioxx attorney who is experienced in matters like drug recalls understands the complexity of the se cases and has access to the many resources the drug industry is able to retain and must be met with powerful evidence and testimony.

Vioxx attorneys have seized an FDA warning letter dated September 17, 2001 that was sent to Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin. The Vioxx lawsuits that ensue may focus on the 2001 FDA warning, according to some predictions. Included in the warning letter is the agency saying Merck engaged in “a promotional campaign for Vioxx that minimizes the potentially serious cardiovascular finding that were observed.” The letter was sent after Merck completed its VIGOR study, which it started in January 1999 and made preliminary results available in March 2000.

The Vioxx attorneys arguing cases are expected to use the VIGOR study results and Merck’s reaction to them. The test was designed to see if Vioxx causes fewer gastrointestinal problems than naproxen, a drug that belongs to the same class of drugs as ibuprofen and aspirin. Upon Vioxx approval, the FDA still required Vioxx labeling to include the same digestive warning s that it requires on naproxen , despite claims that Vioxx was associated to a lower risk of the side effect. While VIGOR did show Vioxx had fewer gastrointestinal problems than naproxen, the unexpected discovery was that a person taking Vioxx had a higher risk of heart attack and stroke than someone taking naproxen.

Even though coronary artery blockage is one of the leading killers in the U.S., Vioxx attorneys are sure to argue Merck’s attempts to downplay what the VIGOR study revealed. Merck indicated in a March 2000 press release that the VIGOR study showed there were significantly fewer heart attack and strokes observed in naproxen patients, which the company attributed to naproxen’s ability to protect against them instead of Vioxx’s ability to cause them. The FDA letter seized by Vioxx attorneys accuses Merck of minimizing unfavorable findings , and the agency ordered the company to send doctors a letter in September 2001 “to correct false or misleading impressions and information” the company had made.