PointofLaw.com: “The Ernst verdict of $253 million was on the front page of newspapers; the Humeston verdict was buried in the business section, something that can only heighten the “Oprah effect” in future cases. Jurors don’t have any way of sending a message to plaintiffs as loud as the message they can send to defendants. It’ll also be interesting to see if the Humeston jurors get the same financial opportunities as the Ernst jurors.”

Update –
Derek Lowe: “I don’t think Merck should be able to suddenly make all their troubles go away (not that that’s going to happen). But neither do I think that they should be driven into the ground like a tent peg by repeated legal hammer-blows. Drug companies should be punished when they screw up. But destroying them for it, in a chancy industry like this one, will just ensure that we don’t have many working drug companies.”

Tom Peters: “What I can say is that with Great Gain comes some Pain. I do not take lightly the death of a single human being from Vioxx, if indeed that were the case. I do believe that if a drug dramatically helps millions, one must, for better or worse, expect a little downside. I do not want to see clinical trials for new drugs extended forever and ever. And subsequent approval extended forever and ever. Perhaps it’s a function of age, but I want demonstrated good stuff available even if there is a minute chance of attendant harm. As in: Welcome to Life 101. Right now I have a couple of docs fighting about a drug that might help me with a minor problem. One is conservative. One is aggressive. The med that the aggressive one wants to use has a few low-odds side effects. I don’t know how I’ll decide, but I damn well appreciate having the two options.”