> Shortly before the FDA approved Vioxx in 1999, drug maker Merck launched a study it hoped would prove that Vioxx was superior to older painkillers, because it caused fewer gastrointestinal problems. Instead, the study would eventually show Vioxx could be deadly, causing heart attacks and strokes.

> Five years after Vioxx's launch, Merck withdrew the drug from the market. By that time, Merck had sold billions of dollars of the drug worldwide.

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2007/11/10/5470430/timeline-the-rise-and...

I have never heard of Vioxx and just looked it up…wow.

Great example.

Only someone totally ignorant of the difference between a vaccine and a pain drug, in terms of how they are tested and approved, would use 'what about vioxx' as an indictment of vaccines.

> ... as an indictment of vaccines.

Nothing here is an indictment of vaccines per se. However, it is legitimate to have concerns over a process the rules stated at the outset were thrown out, possibly for personal profit and political motivations.

Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28280087 for a link to an articulate consideration of a number of concerns regarding this approval.