In Landmark Vioxx Case, Jury Tuned Out Science, Explored Coverup Angle

Here’s a few quotes from the article:

Interviews with jurors suggest that many tuned out Merck’s arguments and focused instead on evidence they understood: that a big corporation allegedly covered up defects with its product. One crucial document was an email from February 1997 — two years before Merck started selling Vioxx — in which a top company scientist, Alise Reicin, wrote that “the possibility of increased CV [cardiovascular] events is of great concern.” Merck maintained that it didn’t know of Vioxx’s potential for heart risk until just before it pulled the drug from the market in September 2004.

——————————————-

Merck argued that Vioxx couldn’t have caused Mr. Ernst’s death because, according to his death certificate, he died of an arrhythmia or irregular heartbeat, not a heart attack. While scientific evidence suggests Vioxx can promote blood clots leading to a heart attack, no data have linked the drug with arrhythmias.

——————————————-

From the beginning, Mr. Lanier showed his theatrical flair, speaking loudly and gesturing while roaming the courtroom as if it were a stage. PowerPoint slides in his opening statement portrayed Merck as an automated-teller machine giving cash to executives. Merck’s marketing arm was depicted as a bulldozer that would push sales at any cost.

——————————————-

By contrast, the Merck lawyers — including Ms. Lowry of Fulbright & Jaworski in Houston and David Kiernan of Williams & Connolly in Washington — were reserved in their presentations. They rarely left the podium when questioning witnesses or addressing the jury.

——————————————-

A critical moment came nearly two weeks into the trial, when Mr. Lanier persuaded the judge, over Merck’s vehement objections, to allow the testimony of Maria Araneta, the coroner who did the autopsy. Though she wasn’t on the initial witness list, Mr. Lanier tracked her down in the United Arab Emirates with the help of two private investigators. Dr. Araneta’s testimony that Mr. Ernst might have had a blood clot — perhaps dislodged during CPR attempts — was the link Mr. Lanier needed to argue that Vioxx caused Mr. Ernst’s death.

Merck presented Thomas Wheeler, interim chairman of pathology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who told the jury that Mr. Ernst’s clogged arteries were likely to blame for his heart attack. “He was like a walking time bomb,” Dr. Wheeler said. He added, “I think Vioxx had nothing to do absolutely whatsoever with his death.”

——————————————-

Ms. Lowry, the Merck lawyer, called Mr. Lanier’s presentations “a bunch of cartoons.” She added: “The science isn’t always as interesting, but that’s what this case is about.”

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/.” ?

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.