Vioxx/Celebrex as Cox-2 inhibitors + Fosamax speculation…


 VIOXX – (allegedly) more than breaking hearts… make no bones about it!

Merck may need to look behind its shoulder… a lawsuit may be the FIRST lawsuit of its kind – alleging that Vioxx inhibits, delays, and even PREVENTS bone/spine healing.  Allegedly Merck both ignored warnings and it should have been suspicious regardless. There could, perhaps be several thousand more lawsuits based on the following information! The statute of limitations is (mostly) ending by the end of September. Several thousand individuals likely don’t have a clue… Also, another Cox-2 inhibitor (Celebrex) still exists! Current (Cox-2 inhibitor) users must also become aware of this alleged (Cox-2 inhibitor) issue(s). 

The Plaintiff alleges to have been severely damaged by inadequate bone/spine healing from a Cox-2 inhibitor drug (Vioxx). There is seemingly overwhelming evidence that Cox-2 inhibitor drugs inhibit or prevent adequate bone repair. In addition to his lawsuit, he is attempting to get the public to understand the issue(s) as there is still time for those in the past to submit a valid claim, and there are perhaps thousands (and thousands?) of people possibly under the same type of (alleged) risk, who use Celebrex today. Just some example excerpts from virtually hundreds of articles: February 02, 2005 – HSS Physicians Review Literature on the Safety of COX-2 InhibitorsCOX-2 inhibitors effect fracture healing and spine fusion… should never be used in spinal fusion… 

December 23, 2002 – Bone FracturesCox-2 Inhibitors interfere with bone growth and, healing Researchers at Stanford University Medical Center…COX-2 inhibitors also impede the new bone growth that normally helps heal a fracture or stabilize a joint implant…

 May 21, 2002 – Journal of Bone and Mineral Research – COX-2 Decreases Bone Healing?mechanical testing revealed that COX-2 inhibitors…reduce bone strength…expression of COX-2 is critical for bone healing…essential for fracture healing…the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis stops normal fracture healing. 

Cox-2: Where are we in 2003? – The role of cyclooxygenase-2 in bone repair – Einhorn TA.Professor and Chairman, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, both non-specific and specific inhibitors of cyclooxygenases impair fracture healing – but that this is due to the inhibition of Cox-2 and not COX-1!… Vioxx is a Cox-2 inhibitor. “It’s time to tell the public,” concludes Dr. Thomas Einhorn.

Journal of Bone Mineral Research 1999 Jun;14(6):969-79initial immune response is crucial to fracture healing… 
Reprinted from: “It’s time to tell the public,” concludes Dr. Thomas Einhorn, Boston University’s orthopedic surgery chairman. New research suggests some of the most widely used painkillers may delay healing of a broken bone… “If it were my fracture … to me every day counts,” he says. Vioxx and Celebrex are among the culprits….the makers of Vioxx and Celebrex deny any link. 

The Plaintiff alleges that Merck skillfully, artfully, and successfully planned and created a “veil of safety” perception and allegedly physicians and consumers were skillfully lulled into a false sense of security.  Further, he alleges that one cannot help but wonder about the concurrent use of Cox-2 inhibitors (such as Vioxx, Celebrex) and bio-phosphates (like Fosamax). BOTH interfere with essential natural functions – natural healing (Vioxx) or regeneration (Fosamax). Fosamax lawsuits, by themselves even (the dreaded “Dead Jaw” syndrome) are accelerating.

My bone/spine healing issue lawsuit started with a broken leg (right femur) – a slip on the ice that was extremely painful, but that was considered a relatively routine operation. However, as the “routine” repair turned into hospital and nursing home long term stays, (after almost 8 months it was no longer was “routine”). Besides the broken leg which is alleged in the lawsuit, there was a failed major Lumbar spine operation that was allegedly ruined by inadequate bone repair (via Vioxx) – though not in this lawsuit for reasons of location and timing).  There are many independent studies convincingly supporting this (Cox-2 inhibitors inhibiting or preventing bone/spine healing) to be the case. These studies go back to at the least the year 2000. There was also general industry “wariness” before that. Virtually all of the studies concluding that Cox-2 inhibiting drugs (such as Vioxx) inhibit or prevent proper spine/bone repair. Furthermore, if it seems that if a bone or spine has healed, it is often much weaker than it should be. 

In short, the Cox-2 enzyme, and the inflammation it brings on is a natural reaction that starts the process of bone healing. Inhibiting the formation of this Cox-2 enzyme can be very effective at reducing pain (Vioxx’s mode of action), however it can carry with it severe consequences by preventing the natural process of bone healing!

As in the heart issues and the many thousands of pending lawsuits, the allegations that are made in this (bone/spine healing issues) lawsuit are so, so similar it makes one wonder if a pattern is now becoming evident. Consequently, there were probably a few thousand people across the U.S. taking Vioxx right through their bone/spine operations that did not gain the proper recovery. They suffered, and even may continue to suffer, severe consequences. Furthermore and allegedly, there may be significant number of individuals thinking that their critical (perhaps life saving) operations were successful, but their continued “success” rides squarely on inadequate (not strong enough) bone healing that could allegedly “snap” at some time. It is easy to see that quite possibly these thousands don’t even know that they may recuperate at least some of their damages as Merck “limps” through the first two years of withdrawing the product and the statute of limitations disqualify so many otherwise proper claims. One might wonder if that is one of the reasons of initiating voluntary withdrawal – i.e. to get the statute of limitations clock “ticking” and thus less time for individuals to discover what happened to them. Furthermore and allegedly, thousands of people may be suffering today – as there is still a Cox-2 inhibiting drug on the market – Celebex.

Going a step further, you may have read or heard that there are a number of lawsuits against Merck regarding FOSAMAX, and the “dead jaw” issue that is allegedly surfacing. This may even have more implications than one would first think. Both Cox-2 inhibiting drugs AND Fosamax work by interfering with the natural response to bone/spine repair (Cox-2 inhibitors) or interfering with the natural response of bone regeneration (Fosamax). One should readily wonder if there may be other, significant issue(s) with the concurrent usage of these drugs. Thus, shouldn’t there be public concern with ALL of the following – let it be stressed “alleged concerns”: 

1 –   Past use of a Cox-2 inhibitor (such as Vioxx or Celebrex) and the need to heal fractured bone/spine. 

2 –   Current use of Celebrex and the need to heal fractured bone/spine NOW! 

3 –   FOSAMAX as the “Dead Jaw” issue continues to accelerate – NOW! 

4 –   Past: concurrent use of Vioxx (or Celebrex) and FOSAMAX and if it has any impact – NOW! 

5 –   Today: concurrent use of Celebrex and FOSAMAX – NOW! 

6 –   Since FOSAMAX allegedly can stay in the bones for 10-15 years, what might be other issues?

Not addressing these issues, and in fact even not having addressed them in the past (allegedly) smells of short term profits being the guiding light, with public safety and long term viability a secondary issue.  This is actually quite prevalent in many of today’s corporations, though in this case we are not talking about physical products or services, we are referring to real people’s lives and those of their loved ones, etc.!

  With either this BLOG (preferably) or either of the two emails below, please provide your history and

thoughts if you or some-one you know, had had a similar experience. if it is relevant and/or questions about my experience or thoughts. I have a wealth of information concerning studies of this issue, and I will over the next couple of week post some of the main ones. If you have some information that you would like me to know, but that you don’t want on the WEB, please email one of the two “bone emails”.

Thank You,


4 Responses to Vioxx/Celebrex as Cox-2 inhibitors + Fosamax speculation…

  1. Dennis Harrison says:

    VIOXX – More than breaking hearts… make no bones about it!

    Merck may need to look behind its shoulder a bit more… a lawsuit originally filed in NY State Supreme Court may well help “peel the onion” of truth about the Merck/Vioxx debacle, as well as aid in establishing alleged patterns consistent with the heart related issues. Quite interesting, it is not about the current heart allegations. Also, there is still time to help others!

    Indeed, this may be the FIRST lawsuit that is NOT about the well-known heart issue(s) from VIOXX usage, which has swept center stage with near daily press releases. Rather it alleges that Vioxx inhibits, delays, and even PREVENTS bone/spine healing – and allegedly Merck both knew it, and should have known it. However, as alleged, Merck ignored it and did not properly address it at all!

    Think you “only” have to worry about heart problems if you took or are taking a Cox-2 inhibiting drug – think again! If you did or do, and are waiting for a bone or a spine to heal, allegedly you may have much longer to wait than you think. Allegedly, your healing may not be normal, and it may not even happen! Relative to warnings of any kind – it is alleged that there were none!

    This would be the second very significant, wide scale issue Merck must address. Mr. Dennis Harrison (Cementon, NY) alleges that once is an occurrence (heart issue), while twice (bone/spine) starts to provide evidence of a pattern. The lawsuit alleges that several of his major orthopedic operations did not heal because of Vioxx. These operations failed, required about an eight-month stay in hospitals and nursing homes (for what was to be a routine 3-4 day stay and 6-8 week recovery!), and contributed to two sepsis attacks as well as many other issues.

    Complicating his dilemma is a typical problem of acquiring legal help against Merck for anything but a related heart issue. Few lawyers can afford the expense/risk (ranging from an estimate of $125,000 to more!). Lawyers in general are (understandably) averse of the risk associated with going up against a company such as Merck, if the issue is not clearly heart related! Thus the Plaintiff (Mr. Dennis Harrison, Cementon, NY) is going it alone; filing “pro se” (i.e. by himself).

    This now has the makings of a real David and Goliath saga!

    Obviously the implications of not having a spine or major bone heal at all, or heal incorrectly can reverse the course of some-one’s life quickly and drastically. It can stop a well-planned and (up to that point) well-executed plan of overall recovery. That was the case per Mr. Harrison’s allegations. Here are a few excerpts from independent research supporting the issue:

    February 02, 2005 – HSS Physicians Review Literature on the Safety of COX-2 Inhibitors…COX-2 inhibitors effect fracture healing and spine fusion…should be delayed for three-four weeks in fracture healing and should never be used in spinal fusion…physical therapy for patients with porous in growth should be delayed…

    December 23, 2002 – Bone Fractures…Cox-2 Inhibitors interfere with bone growth and, healing…Researchers at Stanford University Medical Center have found selective COX-2 inhibitors… interfere with the healing process after a bone fracture or cement less joint implant surgery… COX-2 inhibitors also impede the new bone growth that normally helps heal a fracture or stabilize a joint implant…

    May 21, 2002 – Journal of Bone and Mineral Research – COX-2 Decreases Bone Healing? … mechanical testing revealed that COX-2 inhibitors…reduce bone strength…expression of COX-2 is critical for bone healing…essential for fracture healing…COX-2 has an essential function during normal fracture healing… the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis stops normal fracture healing.

    Cox-2: Where are we in 2003? – The role of cyclooxygenase-2 in bone repair – Einhorn TA.
    Professor and Chairman, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, both non-specific and specific inhibitors of cyclooxygenases impair fracture healing – but that this is due to the inhibition of Cox-2 and not COX-1! As stated, Vioxx is a Cox-2 inhibitor.

    Journal of Bone Mineral Research 1999 Jun;14(6):969-79…initial immune response is crucial to fracture healing…suggests limited usage of COX-2 inhibitors in patients with healing fractures.

    A Merck hired consultant (to study the bone/spine issue), allegedly stated “it’s time to tell the public” and that the “evidence is compelling”. Mr. Harrison questions if that information is included in their recently announced, seemingly self serving study of their internal affairs during the Vioxx ordeal. Also, what all about the reaction to all of those independent studies?

    These independent R&D tests of Cox-2 inhibition medications, obviously indicated deleterious impact on bone/spine healing. Allegedly warnings were provided to Merck. Allegedly, Merck just denied/ignored the issue. Obviously, these allegations would have had a very negative impact on sales, especially in the short run, and if not handled properly at the time. Merck could have acted responsibly and provided proper physician and consumer education, as adequate warnings and education to physicians and consumers could have made it possible to make informed decisions. Between proper education/warnings and working the technical issues, perhaps Merck could have kept the drug on the market. However, allegedly Merck chose higher shorter-term profits versus working through the issues to properly address them (heart and bone/spine) and keeping Vioxx on the market for the longer-term benefit of consumers AND Merck! Such a pity – due to short-term thinking, the educated use of VIOXX might have “saved” it if used appropriately. However, it was basically forfeited for the quicker and higher impact of short term profit.. Unfortunately, this is often the sad state of American corporations in this day and age – short term profits and volatile stock price versus longer-term company viability and ultimately higher, more stable share prices. Volatiilty and short term impacts, unfortunately, can drive executive behavior to take advantage of the volatility in unethical ways.

    Mr. Harrison alleges that Merck skillfully, artfully, and successfully planned and created a “veil of safety” perception which was masking the issues behind this dangerous medication. This “veil of safety”, contributed to the thought process that it was one of the safest drugs around. Thus it is alleged; physicians and consumers were skillfully lulled into a false sense of security. Allegedly and meanwhile, profits kept rolling in as cold calculations indicated that the profit was worth the cost of lawsuits and settlements.

    Allegedly, there were other factors (besides independent testing) that should have made Merck specifically test for this issue, and that at least a simple warning and honest education to physicians, surgeons, physical therapists and/or consumers should have been considered imperative. Mr. Harrison indicates that, without any doubt, he would have prevented Mr. Harrison from taking the drug.

    Not having any clue otherwise, Mr. Harrison continued to take VIOXX (he was a long term user – about 5 years, and took the maximum dosage of 50mg) VIOXX while receiving several very important operations, the Plaintiff’s bone/spine operations (other ones without Vioxx succeeded) failed. Routine leg (femur) operations failed, infections and sepsis set in; broken, infected internal hardware had to be removed. Some broken hardware, a significant amount, remains in his body.

    In the NY lawsuit (broken leg (femur)) – he waited, waited, and waited for some bone healing so that he could be operated on and walk again – but it did not happen after almost the eight months (his surgeons and physicians also were not aware of the Vioxx bone/spine repair problem) Allegedly, surgeons and physicians were not made aware of the problem from Merck (no warnings, no education, etc.). They seemed puzzled as to why Mr. Harrison’s bones were not healing even the minimal amount needed to “maintain an anchor” for the correcting operation(s). Their notes speculate on improper bone healing. Unfortunately, and allegedly the link to Vioxx was purposely not conveyed to them (by Merck). Mr. Harrison alleges that reasons of PROFIT at all means, competition, etc. lead to the alleged neglect, deceit and fraud masking this very serious problem. Merck denies all charges. These allegations certainly sound similar to the current lawsuits that are unraveling what Mr. Harrison refers to as Merck’s weak and self-serving defenses.

    Thus he spent almost a year in hospitals and nursing homes for what was supposed to be a routine 3-4 day hospital stay and about 6 weeks recovery! Mr. Harrison was wheel chair bound, except for “hopping” around on one foot and undergoing painful rehabilitation in an attempt to keep him strong enough on a continuing basis while he waited, and waited. Meanwhile, his home life and finances embarked and continued on a steep, downward spiral.

    As Mr. Harrison waited, waited and. His confidence was reduced to despair and depression. But he kept doing what he was asked to by his physicians and physical therapists. He became desperate and called a well-known surgeon in NJ for help. A method was devised to get around the issue(s) from Vioxx. Far from the plan of record, the most optimal solution (which utilizes bone healing to “anchor” it, as well the ability for the bone to “grow” into the implant) it was basically his only chance to walk and save his leg. However, it is likely to require replacing much sooner than would have been the case. The preferred methodology uses interweaved bone growth into the implant for strength and durability instead of glue. Mr. Harrison, with his health declining, hopes at that time he will be strong enough. – and there is now sufficient reason to be wary of this issue.

    However, his trail to recovery was yet laden with more problems that he alleges simply would not have happened, if the “routine” operations in the beginning had just healed like they were supposed to. His last few months of hospitalization and nursing home experience (with a very brief time home) were plagued with excessive bleeding, infection, sepsis (twice) and obviously depression and ever diminishing hope. He alleges his whole life has been re-arranged, and NOT for the better!

    Before using Vioxx there were other operations, all healing very successfully without complications. His work ethnic is very high – it is very obvious as one looks at his past. Working his way part time (summer full time) during both undergraduate and graduate school, accepting positions almost immediately after graduating, often working without payed overtime, having an unblemished work record, and not taking time off during a few career changes, he has shown nothing but a consistently high work ethnic from the time he was seventeen. He also had returned to work promptly as soon as his physicians allowed him to in several operations in which he could go back to work. During his (successful, pre-Vioxx usage) hip replacements, he worked up to the last day possible, needing a cane for almost three months to move around at work – and he returned absolutely as soon as possible (in fact though his physician agreed it was o.k. – his physician was more than willing to support additional recuperation time), with two crutches (recommended for safety) used during the first several weeks. He left in agony and with a cane, and he came back to work absolutely as soon as possible with crutches! Certainly Mr. Harrison would prefer his extremely, and well payed enjoyable career versus disability payments and an extremely very reduced life style!

    He had felt, based upon what he became was surgically possible, he would again be able to work permanently. His hopes were very high, he had several major successes behind him, and even more importantly he was back on track to resume a more normal and happy family life. Just a bit more! Vioxx usage was, allegedly, about to change all that!

    Little did he know that the seeds to unravel and destruct his hopes for recovery were being planted with the introduction of Vioxx. He would never have projected such a negative turn about in his life. His hopes were to begin to slowly unravel, much to his chagrin, puzzlement, and increasing pain and major discomfort. His use of narcotic pain medication had to be increased significantly. All of this, slowly but surely, after he was induced, via advertisements and improper physician (non)-education allegedly as part of Merck’s product “strategy”, to utilize the new “wonder drug” with it’s alleged “safety profile”.

    The several FAILED operations from the broken leg, plus a planned major correction operation (which had to be cancelled because of the unhealed broken leg! – it was rescheduled when the leg was to be a routine operation, but could not be re-scheduled because of the unhealed bone, long miserable hospital/nursing home stay, and several other issues allegedly that just would not have happened had it not been for Vioxx) to correct a failed (also from inadequate bone repair – noted in medical notes) total Lumbar fusion, and the (up to then) highly successful path to recovery was stopped cold. So Mr. Harrison remains on disability, with failed hardware imbedded in his back, having had a miserable and lengthy hospital/nursing home stay, a permanently damaged family life, a depressing view of a bright future gone bad, and income not anywhere near where it was, and a most satisfying career gone sour.


    While the following is based on facts, allegations, and “intelligent” speculation – Mr. Harrison raises several other potentially explosive issues that he feels, very strongly must be studied. He feels it is just not responsible, in any way, not to do so.

    VIOXX, and all COX-2 inhibitor drugs, work by inhibiting the body’s natural response to inflammation and bone repair/regeneration. Mr. Harrison indicates that he would also have to wonder about other long-term effects on the bones (from Vioxx usage). Also, it begs other questions. What might be the impact of FOSAMAX (also produced by Merck!) on bone healing? It has already been alleged, and there are lawsuits pending, that it can prevent the jaw from healing after a tooth extraction (bone dies – the issue is called “Dead Jaw”). This should cause one to question – what about FOSAMAX’s relation to other bones? Furthermore, what if some one took VIOXX, or another Cox-2 inhibitor, and FOSAMAX at the same time? Both work basically by interfering with the body’s natural reaction of bone repair and healthy regeneration – could the problem be even worse with concurrent use – which did and does exist? And what other bone problems may develop with concurrent VIOXX and FOSAMAX USAGE?

    Mr. Harrison feels it is imperative that Merck, and the FDA finally need to act on more than just the heart issues – but also (1) on the bone/spine repair issues of Vioxx, (2) FOSAMAX taken alone (it’s dreaded “dead jaw” issue), and (3) answer another very important question – what if one took Vioxx (or is currently taking another Cox-2) concurrently with FOSAMAX? Furthermore, (4) since FOSAMAX allegedly stays in the bones for up to 10 – 15 years, what might the impact be of having had VIOXX (or currently another Cox-2 inhibitor still on the market) and either taking FOSAMAX now, in the past, or in the future? Is it possible that even though the bones are supposed to become more “dense” from FOSAMAX (which creates the density by preventing natural bone regeneration), they are also more brittle (as is beginning to be alleged from various sources), and the bones will have healing issues until FOSAMAX finally leaves the bones? Is it possible that if one took FOSAMAX for 3-5 years, and it stays in the body for up to 10-15 years, that one is at risk when taking a Cox-2 drug (still on the market) within those next 10-15 years? Merck, the developer of both drugs, must be able to answer these questions. Incredibly, Vioxx and Fosamax are both produced by Merck! Merck, the FDA, and independent teams must finally review the above. It is unbelievable, with the “sophistication” one would expect from a major drug company, and the FDA that these are not already answered, and that ongoing studies, on a post-marketing basis are not being done NOW!

    These drugs had (have) been on the market a long time. There would seem to be no excuse for not testing the concurrent usage of these drugs, on both a pre and post-marketing basis. It certainly would seem, with Cox-2 inhibition at the core of both the heart and bone/spine issues, and the threat of both FOSAMAX taken alone, or possibly worse, with a Cox-2 inhibitor, that any remaining Cox-2 inhibitors on the market also may need to be brought into this analysis. The same potential relations and allegations, may be applicable. However it seems little, if anything (by either Merck or the FDA) is actively moving that caution forward!

    If you, a loved one, or just some-one you know, has/had similar issues as Mr. Harrison, have questions or thoughts, or are a knowledgeable individual with thoughts and/or information on the subject(s) please feel free to email:

    badbones@hvc.rr – for general bone concerns/history etc. potentially from medication(s) – for specific experience with bone/spine healing problem(s) and the use of a Cox-2 inhibitor medication.

    There are no clumsy forms to fill out, no messages that vanish into thin air, and no character limits. Some reporting mechanisms messages are rigid and difficult – but with your email, just let it flow!

    We must work though the denials and bureaucy to ensure this issue is addressed. If it is not properly addressed now, what is to control it in the future – and in fact, by default, we have encouraged similar behavior in the future! Could tomorrow’s drugs be imbedded with the same short term thinking of shorter-term profits, highly volatile stock prices (also damaging consumers – but creating “opportunities” in some “inside” cases), and executive bonuses over reasonable public safety and reasonable corporation viability and stock valuation. America needs its Pharmaceutical companies. But we need them to be honest – and they all need to play on a level playing field. The issues alleged, must be seriously considered by Merck, the FDA, and the courts – the total impact to society, as poor as it is medically speaking in these cases, even goes beyond medical issues.

    Please include any concerns you may have noted above which apply to. Individual questions cannot be answered, as I am not in the Medical Field, though in some cases I might be able to relate your email to my experiences. Most importantly, selected representative statements, questions, and summary will be published at the end of October. It will NOT provide identifying information, unless you specifically request it. Perhaps making it an imperative goal – your emails will provide enough useful post-usage information that will fan the flames of fair warnings, “level the playing field”, proper analysis, and industry accountability. It is about time!

  2. Dennis Harrison says:

    Via this VIOXX blog – I will be hoping to keep:

    Status of Vioxx
    Update of Vioxx
    Input from others on Vioxx – bone and spine especially

    Status of Fosamax
    Update of Fosamax
    Input from other on Fosamax – bone and spine especially

    Status of Cox-2 inhibitors and Fosamax concurrent usage
    Update of Cox-2 inhibitors and Fosamax concurrent usage
    Input from others on Cox-2 inhibitors and Fosamax concurrent usage

    I also have so, so many good articles on Vioxx. Frequently, I will add a few. Not just limited to Vioxx. Whenever I do, I will of course respect copyright procedures and give credit as to where it came from.

    It would be great if you could also add anything you see that you feel could be useful on this blog – whoever you are. It does not have to be only bone/spine oriented, though that is a general preference, for say 80% of it.

    If you have any unique ideas on how the whole Vioxx issue can be resolved, that would be appreciated. Every time you climb a mountain, you start with a single step! I have my own idea. And I believe that it would satisfy all (after more finer tuning and some negotiatin – but basically I will argue that my premise is correct, and that maybe we can get this Vioxx stuff behind and have things moving, productively, forward again with lessons learned helping to be a guideline. I will plan on this coming Tuesday for a first writing and view of my thoughts on this subject. My energy is very limited, and it often takes me a long time to do relatively simple things (hence, the more input I get from the outside the better!

    Thanks! – and I hope this BLOG can be communicated to the various interested parties – legal, political, medical (like the arthritis organization). I will do some of that, but if you can also spread it (knowledge of this Blog to whatever community you feel should be included, please do so.

    Obviously I have a claim in against Merck. However, one must recognize that they SHOULD pay a fair (not a ridiculous unfair) price as punishment for what they did. Perhaps that can set in place more proper behavior by all drug companies. We want to assist when that makes sense, punish business when that makes sense, but in the overall – we need the businesses to stay the great economic power that we are (and we need to fix a lot of political/job oversees, competitive, issues too!).

    So, suffice it to say this site should be about Vioxx and mostly bone and spine issues. Fosamax and bone and spine issues. Their concurrent use.

    But also constructive thinking of how thow WHOLE issue with MERCK can be resolved, and how we can get our drug companies to start playing on a fair, level playing field for all, so that all profit. Sounds ideal. Yes it is, let’s start with that and then add the necessary paramaters etc. to get it into the real world.


    Dennis Harrison

    Take a look at this and its possible implications!

    ….this study conclusion (just released, not part of this communication), along with my earlier thoughts about (speculation and alleged) Vioxx and Concurrent Vioxx (or Celebrex today) with FOSAMAX, is so mind-blowing… If there are more supporting studies like this, and as more becomes available with FOSAMAX (and apparently (and allegedly) that it actually makes your bones worse – more brittle I mean, over the longer term).

    …(the article that “spurred” this note….is a CRUCIAL ARTICLE AND CONCLUSION. So, … if my thoughts are true, Merck’s very existence with many, many more massive lawsuits, dwarfing the heart issue(s) would (allegedly) seem to be at risk…I am not kidding here. And it may very well (if true) does have to do with the concurrent use of Vioxx and FOSAMAX + one piece of additional information relative to Vioxx…

    1 – my concern (alleged) about FOSAMAX and Cox-2 inhibitors taken concurrently would seem to have some basis based on the article that spurred this communication…. FOSAMAX, in one of the best kept secrets, now becoming known – Vioxx (and this is one of the two “keys” per the article can (allegedly) be BAD for the bones (not just repair – but the actual regeneration which is a normal process).

    2 – It adds ANOTHER dimension to the alleged Vioxx issue(s) I have. My issues center around bone and spine repair problems (allegedly) from Cox-2 inhibitors (such as Vioxx, Celebrex, Bextra). The article (backed by actual formal testing)causing my “intelligent” speculation (alleged at this point) is the first of its kind that I have seen…, and it alleges that (for males) that Cox-2 inhibitors (Vioxx – past; Celebrex – current) also (allegedly) weaken the bones and decrease mineral density. Thus, a long term (Vioxx and FOSAMAX0 user like me is hit again by another issue yet… – the bone (femur) broke, it didn’t heal (vioxx issue); however it already had been weakened before it broke. In my case I think it would have broken anyway, BUT the already weakened bone would have tried to heal already being behind the game.

    3 – Thus broken bone individuals such as myself have now several (AT LEAST 3) issues that can ruin the repair process:

    a – Vioxx by iteself (allegedly) inhibits/prevents proper bone/spine healing; the thrust behind my current lawsuit (filed “pro se” e.g. by myself).

    b – Vioxx, taken on a long term basis (and undoubtedly the highest dosage possible that I took worsened it even more) allegedly can very well weaken the bones, leading to easier fracture (I don’t think that is my leg case – but may have a significant role in why my “head caved in and the spinal cord just barely pierced my brain! – in a life threatening condition that required a life saving operatin (that was in MA). I also plan on filing a lawsuit there, – MA has the two years statute, but a DISCOVERY clause (my DISCOVERY WAS LAST OCTOBER) – would permit the “clock” to run as of last October (Not September 30, 2004 as in two year statute heart cases).

    c – FOSAMAX (allegedly – per many news articles, actually weakens (or makes the bones more brittle; in the long term) bones, not make them stronger – even though the density may be higher! First incidence of this seems allegedly to be the Osteonecrosis (DEAD JAW) issue in which lawsuits are accelerating.

    This all adds up to so, so much fuel to my own case. However, the broader implications for Merck, assuming these issues are not hidden by Merck and the part of the legal community that is in the front lines… may be devastating to Merck.

    This, to the best of my ever increasing knowledge by research, much cross reference, and logic – is just so, so ASTONISHING! It would seem that between very significantly increasing the VIOXX lawsuits plus the increasing number of FOSAMAX lawsuits plus allegedly potentially issues based on concurrent usage).

    Merck, and possibly SOME members of the legal community may be breathing a sigh of relief as they feel that the two years statute has mostly passed. However, they are not so lucky!

    If you are in a three year state – you (depending on total timing) may still sue. If you are in a two year state – you (potentially) may still sue IF the issue is Vioxx and the well publicized and form independent studies concerning Cox-2 inhibitors and the alleged issues of proer bone and spine healing.

    Merck has a very long way to go.

    The public must start DEMANDING that ALL non-heart cases be adequately accepted, and represented, by the legal community (as said before, there seems (allegedly) to be reasons for this not being the case – for the moment those issues are still being studied and at least reasonably concluded.

    More detailed alleged information relative to the (alleged) issue(s) on inadequate bone and spine rapair is available on the Vioxx Blog or you can email via or … if you would like to keep a concern private to yourself and me.

    Thank You,

    Dennis Harrison
    Cementon, NY

  4. I absolutely feel that the number of lawsuits that are known today are only about 1/2 to 1/3 of what will exist – if the public and media, besides the legal community, become informed and demand these allegations be investigated PROPERLY.

    Besides the heart lawsuits – I would allege that there are probably about 15,000 potential lawsuits for improper bone healing (let alone potential and alleged harm from concurrent Vioxx and FOSAMAX (both produced by MERCK!). I am one of them and have my suit filed. Unfortunately, I had to do it “pro se”. Why you ask would I have to do it on my own; and why wouldn’t a lawyer take it?

    In my view two reasons have successfully suppressed the alleged Vioxx bone/spine repair issue(s) and will be at work in suppressing the potential issue of concurrent Vioxx and Fosamax usage. Only the public, demanding that these items be brought to light can change this. There is little, if any momentum doing so otherwise, and in fact, the “campaign” circling the wagons around the heart/CV issue, allegedly valid as it is, seems to also be acting as a “red herring” for the bone/spine issue(s).

    1 – in an attempt to “streamline” as much as possible many, many lawsuits were put into the Federal arena (PSC) to reduce redundancy for “discovery purposes”, and also into the Federal Court system for the actual trials. It seems to be fairly well known that Merck would like to coral as many lawsuits as possible from the State to the Federal arena. In my case, I believe they have done so without the spirit and good faith of the defined process, and I am currently challenging what they have done to me. What this means is that I was put into the Federal arena because my case is supposed to be so similar as the heart/CV case – however, I feel it is because Merck hopes it is buried and suppressed there. The Federal arena, currently is refusing to accept my case for DISCOVERY as they seem to only accept the heart/CV cases. Why, Why, Why – I seem to sense something “fishy” here.

    As part of this Multi District Litigation (MDL) process – a “template” actually exists with the general heart issue allegations. A lawyer can simply cut and paste, put their client’s name in it, and voila – there is a lawsuit filed! Whether it be in State or Federal. Only later, if the lawyer feels it makes sense, does additional detail need to be gained! In the meantime, the lawyer can hope for a large settlement, in which his/her client will probably be able to participate, even without really, really proving the causation. By making the heart/CV cases so easy to file, and the bone/spine repair cases so difficult – in effect, I would argue, they have added a significant number of potentially invalid heart cases, while excluding a LOT of very legitimate bone/spine repair cases! Unbelievable!

    No easy lawsuit filing and template filing – let alone common DISCOVERY procedures across a number of similar cases in the bone/spine repair issue(s). A lawyer must take more time in the initial filing, plus it would seem have to spend a lot more time, and incur a lot more risk, than the heart cases! The bone/spine issues are harder, more time consuming, and involve more risk – the allegations need to be proven – where as in the heart cases, for the most part, the allegations are proven on “almost” a one-time basis, and the risk/reward is easier to follow (because of the similar heart cases pooled for discovery). Thus why would a lawyer want to take the extra time and risk when both are much more minimized for the heart issues. So, a bone/spine repair issue case will constantly be rejected by a lawyer(s). Not because of less merit by any means, but because the “streamlining” process also has deviated from its original purpose and by a large margin, favors issuing lawsuits only for the heart/CV issues. An individual will find him/herself constantly rejected by almost any lawyer in the US.

    2 – Thus I filed my own. I am trying to bring public awareness to this issue – but I am finding it so, so difficult to do so on a large scale. EVERYONE, including the newspapers and TV just naturally associates Vioxx issues with heart/CV, and just assumes that bone/spine repair issues are not relevant. I would allege that Merck has been successful in establishing a thought pattern – in consumers, media AND even the legal community that the only valid lawsuit with Vioxx is the heart/CV issue(s). In my view, obviously, and in my lawsuit and allegations, I don’t at all feel this way…….

    Such is quite the opposite. They are just as relevant. Probably equal or near equal in number, have very similar allegations, but of course different causation proof. In fact, the causation proof would seem to be easier in these cases. My causation is very powerful. Perhaps as I move my case forward, the public media will finally catch on.

    Furthermore, the accelerating number of FOSAMAX cases will indeed be a big issue, in my opinion. The allegations are turning into lawsuits.

    Lastly, though no lawsuits are filed, there may be developments leaning towards allegations of Vioxx and Fosamax concurrently as being a problem.

    Thus, I feel – if the public finally gets knowledgeable, and a more motivated legal system learns what is happening, I believe the number of lawsuits has hardly begun.

    Anyone doubting me, just do a Google on “vioxx bone repair” (no quotes needed) – many independent R&D studies (Stanford, Hospital for Special Surgery, Rochester University, and so, so many more) conclude the same allegations about (Cox-2 inhibitors; of which Vioxx is one of the more powerful) ruining bone/spine repair. And by the way, if one gets major surgery, and if it is close together, as mine was, there is (allegedly by myself and my experiences) even much more damage possible than the typical broken arm, finger, etc. – but either way – it is a severe problem that not only Merck, but the legal industry, currently prefers to sweep under the rug. At least they have that in common!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: