Compare two positions about Merck’s handling of Vioxx. The first position is that Merck should have warned patients about the enhanced risk of heart attack or stroke (after prolonged use of the drug) with prominent language on drug packaging and ads. Eric Topol, director of San Diego’s Scripps Translational Science Institute, called Merck’s deficient labeling “a serious, prolonged problem about being honest about the risks.” The thrust of this position is that had Merck done so, Vioxx might still be on the market. The second position is articulated by a legal complaint filed in 2015 against Merck by the Kuwait Investment Authority, Aegon Investment Management BV and Transamerica Funds. These investors had withdrawn from the settlement Merck had negotiated some years earlier. The complaint alleges that Merck was aware of the risks posed by Vioxx relating to strokes and heart attacks before it won FDA approval in 1999 and could have withdrawn its new drug application. However, the firm instead placed the drug on the market in order to compete against competitor Pfizer’s drug Celebrex.