Comments on: Vioxx and Merck: Monday update

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:02:00 +0000

No, anon, you probably can’t sue over your grandmother’s death, because of the statute of limitations.

Interestingly, the $229 mil punitive part was the amount of money Merck said they could make by delaying the FDA warning on heart risks.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 01:08:00 +0000

“The pathologist testified that the arrythmia was caused by a temporary blockage in a constricted artery, probably by an embolus that broke free during CPR”

Is that like “if a tree falls in the woods, and nobody’s there to hear it, does it make a noise?” Where did the embolus go? Lungs, Brain, did it to to Bob’s Big Burger? Wendy’s? Didn’t it know it was worth 250 million big ones? Can I sue because my grandma died of a heart attack (in 1972) she took alot of NSAIDS, which apparently cause the same inhibition of coronary vessel collateralization?

By: Rich, MD

Rich, MD — Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:54:00 +0000

By the way it is "arrhythmia" not "arrythmia."
# posted by wpwavnrt : 12:37 AM

LOL!

By: drexelmed

drexelmed — Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:41:00 +0000

The jurists in the case appear to disparage the marketing practices and documents hidden by Merck, rather than the actual cause of death. Documents were introduced that demonstrated early warnings by Merck scientists of CV risks as well as attempts to delay FDA knowledge of these risks. Evidence, including videotapes, also demonstrated that sales reps were prepped to avoid physician questions on CV risks to their patients. I enjoy a pubmed search as much as anyone else, but it’s a problem when the majority of scientific evidence I am receiving about a drug is from the biased company itself.

By: wpwavnrt

wpwavnrt — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:37:00 +0000

Consider the following–
Vioxx, the offending drug–worked too well. It removed the deterent to carry out activities that proved to be detrimental to the patient’s health. To wit, if I have significant pain I can’t perform a level of exercise that was inappropriate and would put me at risk for an underlying cardiac proble not previously detected. Hence, the untoward event was, in fact, an accident waiting to happen! This could easily account for the unfortunate assumption that the drug caused the illness when it actually revealed it!
By the way it is “arrhythmia” not “arrythmia.”

By: GG

GG — Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:55:00 +0000

The Forbes article makes two common mistakes. First, they say Merck failed to get “science across to a jury.” But the comments from jury members shows that they understood the difference between a heart attack and an arrythmia. The pathologist testified that the arrythmia was caused by a temporary blockage in a constricted artery, probably by an embolus that broke free during CPR. Second, the point is raised that the deceased took Vioxx for less than 18 months. Remember that 18 months is when a significant diffence is achieved, so these are events which have occured BY that time point; thus, these deaths all occured previous to the time point. Some will have occured much earlier than others, because all people don’t suddenly drop dead at exactly 18 months. So the study in fact says nothing about those who take the drug for OVER 18 months, since it was stopped when the adverse risk became significantly greater at that time point.