I wrote about the Vioxx decision here as another defeat for personal choice. Marginal Revolution has a good post on gaps in the anti-Vioxx science. Here is a taste:
...[E]ven if there actually is an elevated risk of the magnitude the studies
suggest but can't prove, the question is whether I might want to accept a 1 in 4,000 risk of dying
from a heart attack in order to get the only medication timt
makes my pain bearable and a mobile life livable. And if I say no to the
Vioxx, I may end up taking something that is less effective for my pain but has
risks of its own.
.... How did we arrive at a system in which 12 random Texans are assigned
responsibility for evaluating the scientific merits of statistical evidence of
this type, weighing the costs and benefits, and potentially
sending a productive blue-chip American company into bankruptcy protection?