When Vioxx was put on the market in 1999, it was viewed as something of a medical marvel. It was a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), and most NSAIDs at that time tended to do a lot of damage to the stomach lining in addition to fighting arthritis or menstrual pain, which was their intended effect. Aspirin and ibuprofen, the most common NSAIDs, can certainly harm the stomach, but Vioxx did not. It was carefully crafted to target only the pain-causing enzymes and leave the stomach alone.

What people did not know at the time, however, was that Vioxx had a worse side effect than stomach ulcers. It could weaken the cardiovascular system and lead to heart attacks and strokes.

Merck, the pharmaceutical company that developed and sold the drug, took it off the market voluntarily in 2004. But by then much of the damage was done, at least as far as the public was concerned. The Food and Drug Administration had estimated that at least 80,000 and as many as 130,000 heart attacks had already been caused by Vioxx, and that around 30 percent of them were probably fatal.

This opened a huge number of legal options. Furthermore, some have claimed that Merck knew about Vioxx’s deadly capabilities prior to selling it, and that a desire to make a profit drove them to distribute it regardless of the side effects.

From a legal standpoint, even if Merck honestly did not know what Vioxx might do in the long run, there is a chance the company should be held financially liable anyway. Some argue that Merck should have known what would happen, or that the data Merck had at its disposal ought to have raised some red flags. The worst damage is to people who took Vioxx for more than 18 months, and the initial tests did not last that long. But surely the results gleaned from 6 months should have given a clue what would happen after 18 months. That is the legal argument that some have made.

If you took Vioxx yourself between 1999 and 2004, and if you suffered any serious side effects from it, heart attack, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, etc., you should certainly speak with an attorney to see what your specific options are.

It is also imperative that you see a lawyer if a family member died from a Vioxx-related heart attack or stroke. Courts are particularly sympathetic to plaintiffs in those types of cases.

You may also be entitled to some remuneration even if you have not suffered any setbacks yet. Visit your doctor and get a physical exam. Find out if your heart is as strong as it used to be. You should also peak with an attorney to see what your choices are. Many courts are already ruling that Merck is wholly responsible for the damage done by Vioxx, so it might be in your best interest to see how it all relates to you in your specific case.