>It soon turned out Merck had known of potential lethal side effects even before launching Vioxx in 1999, but had brushed all such disturbing tests under the rug.

I don't trust this line.

I suspect that preliminary tests show all kinds of extreme possibilities. Positive and negative.

How many dangerous side effects never came to be?

How many supposed benefits never came to be?

Why should they have paid particular attention to this dangerous side effect? The article doesn't make it clear.

And for the record, I believe drug companies don't have our best interests at heart and that the FDA is captured by industry.