Talk:Rofecoxib

message: I think the reader is better off with a clickable hyperlink right at the point where information is stated.  Changing the Wikipedia article to the more conventional scientific format means that a reader who's interested in this article's summary of the meta-analysis, and wants to read the original, has to note the lead author's name and then find it in the "References" (perhaps after looking in vain in "External links", where such things would be in most Wikipedia articles).  Nevertheless, I don't usually edit scientific articles, so I'm not going to take on a battle over whether we should follow the style guides that evolved before anyone had heard of a hyperlink.
One point has to be made clear, though.  Jüni et al. did not make the criticism of the FDA.  The Lancet published their study and also offered a "Comment" expressing an editorial opinion.  That opinion must be separately cited so as not to be imputed to the named authors.  I've restored an inline hyperlink to  (different from the Jüni et al. paper, which is at ).  An editorial seems to me to be an even worse candidate for the conventional citation of a research paper.  If it were to be transformed, though, I suppose it would be "(Horton, 2004)" in text, and a "References" listing of:
* Horton R (2004).  "Comment: Vioxx, the implosion of Merck, and aftershocks at the FDA".  The Lancet (published online).
I'd oppose presenting it this way but, there, I've done the work if that's the format scientific editors insist on.  (I've done my best, anyway.  I don't know the rules for this format.  Does a comma separate an author's surname from his or her initial?  There's a comma at that point in Senator Grassley's listing but in no others.) JamesMLane 07:34, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was following the recommended APA citation style recommended on the Wikipedia cite sources page, mainly to make it flow a bit better. Of course there is no absolute style to follow, so I won't edit what you've done with the editorial comment for the time being. Some people in the scientific field can get really anal about citation styles; but I think it's really whatever style is consistent to what's already on the page and whatever flows (e.g. you wouldn't really want an entire article interspersed with external links - but neither would you really want (Foobar, 2004) every sentence either. Either way, it's still probably a good idea to have a formalised reference section at the bottom. With the editorial thing, it was my mistake changing that, since I wasn't able to access that editorial and I'd assumed that the link pointed to merely a print version of the online article. Thanks for changing it back to reflect what it was really meant to say. Techelf 07:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For my part, I wouldn't mind at all having an entire article interspersed with hyperlinks.  It would address the main criticism of Wikipedia -- that you can't trust the content.  In fact, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd say that, beginning with the creation of Wikipedia, requiring the inclusion of a link or an offline reference for each assertion might've been a good idea.  Anyway, as to the format, I'm in no position to criticize people who get anal about APA style.  I've done the same on law-related articles with passages that don't follow proper legal citation style. JamesMLane 08:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Style of reference to ''Lancet'' publication

message: in the litigation chapter it is written 'but this will likely be cut to no more than USD$26.1 million due to the cap on punitive damages under Texan law'. I found a similar line in The New York Times. Kind of astonishing that the jury awards damages it knows is too high under Texan law. Can somebody explain the nature of this cap? Hppl 21:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Litigation: cap on punitive damage

message: Can anyone explain why we need a SMILES string here when there's already the molecular formula and structure? -Techelf 09:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: SMILES string?

message: Looks like a self-serving way to drum up business. Let the consensus decideDlohcierekim 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS the url is http://www.vioxx-lawyer-all-about.com/. anon insists I'm mistaken. I shan't rvrt 3rd timeDlohcierekim 02:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed to lawyer's page 

message: This article begins with the story of how the drug was withdrawn from the market.  I came here to find out when it was approved for the market.  Where is the history of the drug's development and introduction?  --Blainster 19:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing history

message: In the discussion of the NEJM's authors' response, this was stated:
:the additional events were disclosed to the FDA and the public on the Vioxx warning label
Now I have not seen the warning label in several years ;), but am wondering if it makes any sense at all to have specific events of one particular study included on the warning label of a bottle of pills.  It would be one thing if it were the first time ever these types of events were seen, but these were merely additional events of an already observed type.  Should this read something like 
:the results of the full analyses were disclosed to the FDA and reflected on the Vioxx warning label
?  Baccyak4H 15:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this really be right? 

message: Could someone change Kent and Co. to Merck & Co? I can't seem to find the edit link for the introduction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.86.17.251 (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent 

message: New RS about Mercks pro-Vioxx PR in Australia MaxPont (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merck smeared doctors critical of Vioxx

message: Moved from article: 
:I am an MD  a senior medical researcher in university in US.  I am having High blood pressure for 20 years too.. These side effect blogs are  games played by big pharma to marked their new patented drugs and  discourage generics( Older drugs tested by time as safe). If a drug survived in market more than 5 years  even with alternative medications in the market means  it is safe. Never believe the lies spread by pharma maketing  and Never spend more money on newer drugs unless it is really essential. As often these new drugs have more  unknown side effects may even cause death that may not be anticipated by  your physician. best such examples are Avandia, Vioxx. If MBAs with No medical knowledge and no compassion for human life become CEOs of the company and dictate terms to the medical community it will be a major disaster to humanity. These MBAs are driven by profits  not by scientific advancement. Folks please donot become lab rats and guinea pigs for the Pharma MBAa executives. [anon.]
kwami (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  blog entry 

message: I notice there is a discussion about the mechanism of vascular side effect of rofecoxib in this article which may be quite misleading, which is the so called thromboxane/prostaglandin imbalance in relation to platelets.  
One thing to point out is prostaglandins are a big family, prostacyclin is just one isoform, also thromboxane is not only produced by COX-1 in platelets, but also by both COX-1 and COX-2 in vasculature.  So the so-called prostaglandin/thromboxane imbalance by selective COX-2 inhibitors doesn't make any sense logically and scientifically.  Hope this error will be corrected soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.166.113 (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  the cardiovascular pharmacology of COX-2 inhibition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rofecoxib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101111103315/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4054991 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4054991
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060908042122/http://genetics.case.edu/faculty2.php?fac=ejt9 to http://genetics.case.edu/faculty2.php?fac=ejt9
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rofecoxib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029024523/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/14/financial/f124814S66.DTL&type=health to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/14/financial/f124814S66.DTL&type=health
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150104200843/http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Sciam_article_on_lobbying.htm to http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Sciam_article_on_lobbying.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060625011642/http://www.saferdrugsnow.org/documents/vio/E-mailreCarloPatronoVIGOR.pdf to http://www.saferdrugsnow.org/documents/vio/E-mailreCarloPatronoVIGOR.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120610235819/http://dimer.tamu.edu/simplog/archive.php?blogid=3&pid=3293 to http://dimer.tamu.edu/simplog/archive.php?blogid=3&pid=3293
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150921162135/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4988532 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4988532
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111124205736/http://www.merck.com:80/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2011_1122.html to http://www.merck.com/newsroom/news-release-archive/corporate/2011_1122.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Rofecoxib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F02%2F14%2Ffinancial%2Ff124814S66.DTL&type=health
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417053059/http://www.merck.com/newsroom/vioxx/pdf/vioxx_press_release_final.pdf to http://www.merck.com/newsroom/vioxx/pdf/vioxx_press_release_final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041029135457/http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2004/prg101504.pdf to http://finance.senate.gov/press/Gpress/2004/prg101504.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041221215942/http://www.merck.com/statement_2004_1105/lancet.pdf to http://www.merck.com/statement_2004_1105/lancet.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050118105613/http://vioxx.com/vioxx/documents/english/vioxx_press_release.pdf to http://www.vioxx.com/vioxx/documents/english/vioxx_press_release.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103071954/http://www.courttv.com/trials/vioxx/ to http://www.courttv.com/trials/vioxx/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822003656/http://www.learnaboutvioxx.com/ to http://www.learnaboutvioxx.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060127064619/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/much-pain-much-gain-skeptical.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/01/much-pain-much-gain-skeptical.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060119225517/http://www.aei.org/research/liability/publications/pubID.23513%2CprojectID.23/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/research/liability/publications/pubID.23513%2CprojectID.23/pub_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060119225606/http://www.aei.org/research/liability/publications/pubID.23542%2CprojectID.23/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/research/liability/publications/pubID.23542%2CprojectID.23/pub_detail.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added a few sentences about Benoxaprofen (Oraflex) to the "Other NSAIDs" section of the main article but it was deleted by Jytdog. 
Benoxaprofen is an NSAID. It is a lipoxygenase, not a cyclooxygenase, but they both operate on arachidonic acid. Like Vioxx, but years before Vioxx, Oraflex was also withdrawn from the market. Unlike Vioxx, there were criminal charges filed in the Oraflex case.
I had written: "Benoxaprofen, marketed as Oraflex by Eli Lilly, is a lipoxygenase inhibitor. It was approved for sale in the US in May 1982. In less than 3 months, there were at least 11 deaths in the US attributed to Oraflex and the drug was withdrawn from the market in August 1982."
Oraflex is another NSAID (with a related mechanism of action). I think it belongs in the main article. WHY WAS IT REMOVED FROM THE "Other NSAIDs" section of the Vioxx (Rofecoxib) entry? 
--AdderUser (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: did you read the edit note? Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. "content doesn't connect mechanism". Does that mean if I explain it a little more ("Benoxaprofen is another NSAID.") and connect the two mechanisms (both are oxygenases) that it goes back in? I didn't think it was necessary because the section is titled "Other NSAIDs" and the wiki link to Benoxaprofen would have confirmed and explained that. (I was NOT trying to slip in a non-NSAID to the "Other NSAIDs" section.) AdderUser (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source used needs to connect the mechanisms of toxicity for benoxaprofen and for rofecoxib and the content should summarize that to show it is relevant to this drug. yep. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benoxaprofen (Oraflex) - another NSAID that was removed from the market 

message: The opening paragraph to this article reads like a promotion of the drug, giving confidence that a normal process of assurance for drug development was followed. This is, of course, far from the case, where compensation was paid for NOT following the normal process of drug development, substituting instead for conflated results. Using the past tense 'was' in every sentence is insufficient to convey the status of the drugs' existence. A statement that includes the word 'withdrawn' would be more accurate. Fred114 20:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph