The Washington Post talks about the Vioxx trials
“Politicians and regulators should be asking themselves whether a system of massive cash awards to people who may or may not have been adversely affected by Vioxx is a logical, fair or efficient way to run a drug regulatory system. They should also be asking whether juries that scorn medical evidence are the right judges of what information should or should not have been on a prescription label. After all, Vioxx was produced and sold legally. The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and its label did warn of coronary side effects. It is possible, even probable, that Merck was negligent in its decision to ignore early warnings of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx. But the company has already paid a price for that negligence, in the losses it has suffered after abruptly taking Vioxx off the market. Fair compensation for the injured needn’t entail disproportionate financial punishment as well.”
Related posts:
- When drug side effects scare patients away from treatment
- The persecution of "off-label"
- Should we believe the polypill hype?
- Would you take a prescription drug for longer eyelashes?
- Medicare covers more cancer drugs, did they cave in to the pharmaceutical lobby?
- Districting viewers from drug risks
- Soft sell
{ 6 comments }
It is appalling that such a large punitive amount has been awarded to the alleged victims in this case against Merck due to Vioxx. No drugs are without side effects and I want to know the statistics of how many people had coronary problems prior to the use of the drug; and the percentage that developed major episodes as compared to the general population. I took Vioxx for 5 years because the other NSAIDS caused GI bleeding and now I cannot take anything to relieve my pain for O.E. When people have arteries that are 70% or more blocked, one cannot say that the drug contributed to their M.I.’s without looking at their medical history, i.e. diet, weight, smoking, cholesterol, triglycerides and whole host of other diagnostic tests. I think the chance for financial remuneration has clouded the thinking of the patients, lawyers and some doctors. No drug is without side effects and to become litigious over every side effect would leave us without medicines entirely. These types of cases should not be judged by lay people for they do not have a full understanding of medicine and what it takes to get a drug to market.
If the government should cover all injuries associated with drugs (as does the Children’s Vaccine Fund for vaccine injuries), why not just go all the way and nationalize healthcare?
Hell, I’m loving this! I shorted Merck big before the last trial. The Government is run by lawyers, for lawyers, to make lawyers rich. What an easy way to make money! Like taking candy from a baby! If you own Merck in your 401K, run! It’s going Bankrupt! John Edwards for president!
I agree with the article. Especially, if the possibility of coronary side effects was already in lilsted. I always read possible side effects of drugs I am prescribed. If something concerns me, I try to find the probability of this happening on the web. If I feel that for me benefits don’t outweight the risk, I either don’t take it (if it is not really necessary) or ask if there is an alternative.
It is terrible that people who really need Vioxx cannot get it. The same thing may happen with HRT. Younger women – those who had their ovaries removed or who had premature or early menopause – may end up having problems getting a prescription if this continues.
I shorted Merck big before the last trial.
This was smart – any tips? After the news of Vioxx came out and Merck fell I thought of buying – silly me I thought all the bad news was already in the price. Thank god I didn’t do it. Maybe it’ll be at bargain price soon. It is a great company.
” It is a great company.” Are you kidding me? Look at all the other companies out there with drugs reported to cause death (Fen-Fen, Baycol, how about silicone breast implants) You could have shorted each company, and you could retire by now. The lawyers are getting rich, why shouldn’t we? I shorted before the first verdict, I recently doubled my short. Even if they win the second trial there is FIFTY THOUSAND more! Merck is dead!
Second Trial Another Bitter Pill for Merck
Sunday September 18, 3:02 pm ET
By John Curran, Associated Press Writer
Second Vioxx Trial Another Bitter Pill for Merck; Setbacks in Case of Man Who Had Heart Attack
ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) — For Merck & Co., its second trial over failed painkiller Vioxx is another bitter pill. The beleaguered New Jersey pharmaceutical maker, already reeling from a big loss in the first Vioxx case to go to trial, suffered a few setbacks last week as the second one got under way.
ADVERTISEMENT
Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee barred jurors from hearing about a Food and Drug Administration memo earlier this year that said cardiovascular risks are associated with Celebrex, Bextra, ibuprofen and naproxen — not just Vioxx. Later, Higbee chastised Merck’s lead attorney, Diane Sullivan, for casting aspersions about lawyers in her opening statements, in violation of a pretrial order
Comments on this entry are closed.