Comments on: Merck wins the latest round . . . or did they? http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/07/merck-wins-latest-round-or-did-they.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:09:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/07/merck-wins-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64989 Anonymous Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:56:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/07/merck-wins-the-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64989 First and third comments were mine. I areed with the finding of the jury. First and third comments were mine. I areed with the finding of the jury.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/07/merck-wins-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64983 Anonymous Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:00:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/07/merck-wins-the-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64983 It appears that the jury actually did consider this on a scientific basis. In fact, they agreed with what many physicians here say - DTC marketing of pharmaceuticals can be misleading and dangerous, and there is real danger in it. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it caused the particular plaintiff's injury. <br/><br/>But what do these people know - they're just stupid laymen. It appears that the jury actually did consider this on a scientific basis. In fact, they agreed with what many physicians here say – DTC marketing of pharmaceuticals can be misleading and dangerous, and there is real danger in it. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that it caused the particular plaintiff’s injury.

But what do these people know – they’re just stupid laymen.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/07/merck-wins-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64977 Anonymous Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:15:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/07/merck-wins-the-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64977 My family or not, I expect the matter to be handled based upon the science of the issue and not conjecture or emotion. The key to this is proving, to a reasonable degree of scientific (not medical)certainty that a causal relationship between the use of the product and the condition exists (temporal relationship is not sufficient).<br/><br/>This case, and perhaps all torts, should be evaluated using a scientific basis. The toxic tort system is a start with plaintiffs needing to prove both general and specific causation. The latter, however, still needs some work. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not science nor should advocate "expert testimony" be misconstrued as an objective analysis of the facts of the case. Find a specific trait of Vioxx induced MI that is not present with other potential sources and we can have consideration of a causal linkage. My family or not, I expect the matter to be handled based upon the science of the issue and not conjecture or emotion. The key to this is proving, to a reasonable degree of scientific (not medical)certainty that a causal relationship between the use of the product and the condition exists (temporal relationship is not sufficient).

This case, and perhaps all torts, should be evaluated using a scientific basis. The toxic tort system is a start with plaintiffs needing to prove both general and specific causation. The latter, however, still needs some work. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not science nor should advocate “expert testimony” be misconstrued as an objective analysis of the facts of the case. Find a specific trait of Vioxx induced MI that is not present with other potential sources and we can have consideration of a causal linkage.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/07/merck-wins-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64973 Anonymous Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:15:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/07/merck-wins-the-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64973 uless of course it happens to be one of your family members hurt by their medicine, then we can surely expect you to sing a different song...right? uless of course it happens to be one of your family members hurt by their medicine, then we can surely expect you to sing a different song…right?

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2006/07/merck-wins-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64956 Anonymous Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:14:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2006/07/merck-wins-the-latest-round-or-did-they.html#comment-64956 Typical trial attorney pap. Each group of litigators need only one win to set them up for a lifetime. Let us hope that we continue to have reasonable juries that see through this and other PI BS smokescreens (provider induced cerebral palsy, whiplash, post-traumatic fibromyalgia, etc.) Let us just hope that the decedant's provider didn't bed him/herself with these attorneys and exposit some post hoc ergo propter hoc causation testimony. Typical trial attorney pap. Each group of litigators need only one win to set them up for a lifetime. Let us hope that we continue to have reasonable juries that see through this and other PI BS smokescreens (provider induced cerebral palsy, whiplash, post-traumatic fibromyalgia, etc.) Let us just hope that the decedant’s provider didn’t bed him/herself with these attorneys and exposit some post hoc ergo propter hoc causation testimony.

]]>