By Steve DiJoseph
10-21-2005
newsinferno.com
"...It has not come as a surprise to medical, legal, and financial experts that Merck finds itself in the serious predicament it now faces.
"Merck can take the position that it was always concerned with safety and that it only pulled Vioxx off the market after there was evidence that a cardiovascular risk existed, but the insurmountable evidence is clearly to the contrary.
"Merck can take the position that Vioxx did not cause the injuries and deaths complained of in the over 5,000 (and growing) lawsuits against, but the medical evidence is clearly not in its favor...
"Merck can argue that each individual plaintiff died or was injured by his or her own prior medical problems, but there are only so many 'coincidences' even Merck can expect the public (or a jury) to accept. Clearly, some (if not many or most) of the plaintiffs were adversely affected by the drug. Even if Merck’s own clinical evidence is accepted, the percentages indicate that thousands (and probably tens of thousands) of those taking Vioxx would suffer the known adverse effects of the drug.
"...Going back as far as 1996, the evidence is clear and consistent when it comes to the potential risks posed by Vioxx and the other COX-2 inhibitors like Bextra and Celebrex.
"...Although Merck attempted to make the best out of a very bad situation by making it appear as if its voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx was motivated by concern for the public, the evidence does not support that position.
"Most business experts have little doubt that the removal of Vioxx from the market was anything but a purely financial consideration on the part of Merck which stood to lose $700 to $750 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 alone. The lawsuits were piling up and some of the cases were close to trial.
"...On November 18, 2004, Dr. [David] Graham appeared before the Senate Finance Committee Chaired by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). Dr. Graham delivered compelling and often shocking testimony concerning the very real dangers of Vioxx and the unconscionable delay in pulling the drug from the market which has exposed the public to a degree of risk never before seen with respect to any prescription drug including sulfanilamide and thalidomide.
"...Originally, Merck had taken the position that it intended to litigate every case to conclusion. Following the $253 million Texas verdict, the company’s lead attorney hinted at the possibility of settling some cases.
"Merck then made the decision to go back to its original strategy of forcing each plaintiff to go to trial. That road began with the current trial in New Jersey where Merck unveiled a 'win at all costs' strategy that has not gone over well with the trial court." Click the title to read this Newsinferno.com Special Report.
See also:
...
GlycoHealth: NSAIDS
