A mistrial in the most recent Vioxx case. Some say this is not a good sign for Merck:

Legal analysts had predicted that the case would be decided in Merck’s favor because the patient in question had taken Vioxx for barely a month. The mistrial points to some jurors’ willingness to trace serious health problems to even short-term use of the drug, raising concerns for Merck as it faces thousands of similar lawsuits.

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • Anonymous

    The Houston trial pointed out many things that Merck tried to hide from the public and also the media. Merck thought that trial would be a slamdunk because they didn’t want anyone to know that Vioxx did cause short-term affects.

  • Anonymous

    Arguments from the Vioxx fallout for health courts:

    1. This particular case (which should have been a no brainer for Merck)

    2. The hysterics and media attention over what amounts to nothing concerning the 3 ‘deleted’ CV events in the VIGOR data Merck turned over to NEJM. I suppose I may be pessimistic, perhaps juries are discerning enough to make an intelligent reading of the media hoopla around this ‘deleted’ data.
    Read this: http://www.corante.com/pipeline/archives/2005/12/09/a_vioxx_bomb_drops_or_does_it.php

    3. History of over compensation in drug suits, which will almost certainly be the case here for Merck.

    I mean really, almost no correlation between actual causality and the wide range of drug suit jury awards. Or between medical negligence and jury awards.

    I wouldn’t trust myself to determine if an airplane crash was the manufacturers fault so why would I trust a receptionist or taxi driver to sift through complicated research and testimony in a healthcare or pharm case? He’s as likely to find for the side whose expert witness has the best smile as he is for the side supported by the facts.

  • Anonymous

    “3. History of over compensation in drug suits, which will almost certainly be the case here for Merck.”

    Really? What constitutes overcompensation?

    “I wouldn’t trust myself to determine if an airplane crash was the manufacturers fault so why would I trust a receptionist or taxi driver to sift through complicated research and testimony in a healthcare or pharm case?”

    Just because you’re not smart enough to understand things that are explained to you doesn’t mean everyone isn’t.

    “I mean really, almost no correlation between actual causality and the wide range of drug suit jury awards.”

    Really? Says. . . . you? The same guy who isn’t smart enough to have anything explained to him?

  • Anonymous

    I gotta side with CJD on this one. I made enough money shorting Merck now that I can wipe my butthole with $100 bills. If you can’t beat the sodomites, join them.

  • Anonymous

    Your obsession with asses is getting out of hand. You should seek help.

  • Anonymous

    You are right. I’m obsessed with you CJD.