Opinion ID: 1211810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: New York Times Article (October 9, 2001)

Text: On October 9, 2001, the New York Times published an article about COX-2 inhibitors entitled The Doctor's World; For Pain Reliever, Questions of Risk Remain Unresolved. App. at 653. The article reported on troubling questions about whether Vioxx may have an unexpected side effect  a very slight increase in the risk of heart attack. App. at 653. However, the article explained that [t]he risk is hypothesized, not proved, and that leading arthritis specialists ... say that they are not concerned and that they prescribe the drugs for patients who may have heart disease. App. at 653. The article noted that [a]t issue is the subtle question of what counts as evidence, App. at 653, explaining that the risk that COX-2 inhibitors cause blood-clotting was originally posed as a theory a few years earlier by a scientist from the University of Pennsylvania. The article addressed defendant Scolnick's statements at length. According to the article, Scolnick said that Merck look[ed] specifically for excess heart attacks and strokes in the VIGOR study and found a higher incidence in the patients taking Vioxx. App. at 654. `There are two possible interpretations,' Dr. Scolnick said. `Naproxen lowers the heart attack rate, or Vioxx raises it.' App. at 654. The article went on, while [Merck] announced the heart attack findings to doctors and the public, it looked back at its data from studies using different drugs or dummy pills in comparison to Vioxx. It found no evidence that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks, Dr. Scolnick said. App. at 654. He said that the company decided that `the likeliest interpretation of the data is that naproxen lowered ... the thrombotic event rate'. ... He added that without the theoretical question raised by [the University of Pennsylvania scientist], `no one would have a question remaining in their mind that their [sic] might be an additional interpretation.' App. at 654. The article reported Scolnick as conceding that none of the findings to date are enough to prove that the issue is fully resolved. That lack of proof is why the F.D.A. demanded that Merck explain both sides of the hypothesis, telling doctors and patients that it is not known whether naproxen protects against heart attacks or Vioxx makes them more likely. App. at 654. There was no significant movement in Merck's stock price following the publication of the New York Times article.