Merck has just been ordered to pay $250m to the widow of a “Vioxx victim.” I put Vioxx victim in quotes because the man who died had only taken the perscription drug for seven-months. This is way below the 18-months of usage that some studies show might slightly increase the risk of arrhythmias. “Merck said it was ‘disappointed’ with the verdict, claiming ‘the plaintiff did not meet the standard set by Texas law to prove Vioxx caused Mr Ernst’s death.’ There is no reliable scientific evidence that shows Vioxx causes cardiac arrhythmias.” Even if Vioxx does increase the risk, it is still only a relative increase. An increase of even 10% over the absolute risk of 1% (just used as an example) is not that worrisome. Merck now faces numerous lawsuits that will cost them from $4-$50 billion over the next decade. What a waste of money! That money could be used to research better drugs or even cures to current diseases. This is yet another example of frivolous lawsuits that are brought by greedy lawyers and a sue happy America.
Your comment reflects that you only made it 180 degrees on your attempt to roll . http://www.illiteratewithdrawal.com/.
Ten jurors found that this case had merit. How can you say that the lawsuit is frivilous? You may disagree with the result, even though you don’t know the facts, but you cannot in good conscious say that it is frivilous.
Of course the money would be better used to develop better drugs. Unfortunately, this jury found that Merck abused the privilege of doing business by knowingly selling an unreasonably dangerous product. It is Merck’s shareholders who should be outraged – the management of their company is sqandering their money for short-term gain.
You are right that I am not privileged to the exact details of this case or how much about this drug Merck actually knew but…here’s a recent Monday, August 22nd WSJ article sums up what I think quite nicely: Merck Loss Jolts
Drug Giant, Industry
In Landmark Vioxx Case, Jury Tuned Out Science, Explored Coverup Angle
Here’s a few quotes from the article:
——————————————-
——————————————-
——————————————-
——————————————-
——————————————-
Also, here’s another blog post that illustrates my feelings: A Penny For….: A Jury of Your Peers
After reading that WSJ article, how reliable do you think the 10 out of 12 jurors that voted against Merck are? Much like the frivolous cases brought on by John Edwards (Did ‘Junk Science’ Make John Edwards Rich? — 01/20/2004, Edwards’ malpractice suits leave bitter taste), emotion again played a greater role than science. All it takes, I guess, is a great lawyer with emotional appeal and an elaborate media presentation.
Care to explain what you mean by: “Your comment reflects that you only made it 180 degrees on your attempt to roll . http://www.illiteratewithdrawal.com/.” ?