Out of My Mind

Posts to the Wall Street Journal's law blog page in response to a brief item about the current Vioxx trial. It's amazing how full-of-crappedness is really universal and is not limited by wealth and education (yes, yes, I know, remember Paris -- Hilton). My brief post is last.

These trials are absolutely ridiculous since every drug has side effects for some people. I’m sure no company knows what all those side effects are. People are different so the effects of the drugs will be different. If the drugs work well on some people, it is worthwhile for others to try them and stop using them if there are bad side effects. But don’t blame the company that made the drug. There’s absolutely nothing malicious in companies trying to develop useful drugs that will at least help some people. It’s a shame that we allow such trials to occur.
Comment by Richard W. Vook - February 8, 2006 at 12:20 pm

It isnt so much an issue of whether or not the drug was reactive in certain patients but whether the risks in this medication wree inherently higher such that the medication was dangerous and further if the company was aware of these risks and reasonably should have informed consumers.

I think most medical and gun related lawsuits are crap personally but I do think that from the evidence the public has been able to see so far, merck knew and should have known about the flaws in the medication and further took active steps to remove that data from public view. These actions are not consistent with the good faith efforts of a reputable drug company.

It is for this reason that the lawsuits can and are proceeding. The issue is not whether there were side effects, the issue is the company covering up vital information that would have allowed some patients to make life-saving decisions not to use the drug.
Comment by Wayne S. Anderson - February 8, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Why doesn’t Merck use the Bayer AG defense? What if Aspirin were still under patent, and still being manufactured and sold exclusively by Bayer AG? Everone should know aspirin can cause G/I trouble. It’s not been taken off the shelves. NO ONE knew for certain the potential trouble with Vioxx, not Merck and not the FDA. Now Merck is being sued by lawyers and “victims” whose motives have to be suspect. Why aren’t those “injured” by Bayer Aspirin or its generic manufacturers suing? The answer is not just because there isn’t a big bucks payoff.

I attended the Houston trial as a observer. I noticed a lot in that trial. I saw a family who lost a loved one who did not need to die so soon. I also noticed that Merck defiantly has been covering up facts about the drug Vioxx and that it was known from the beginning that it was a harmful drug. Yes all drugs have side affects but Vioxx did cause blood clots and caused DEATH!!! I feel bad for this family because they are still enduring the pain of the lost and shouldn’t be going through this because Mr. Irvin should be alive and the drug should of NEVER been put on the market. Merck defiantly put Money over lives. Yes the drug helped many but also killed and had the risk of killing a lot more if it was still on the market.
Comment by Anonymous - February 8, 2006 at 12:52 pm

Of course, Mr. Irvin was killed by his obesity and heart disease, rather than the three weeks of Vioxx he took, and, of course, Merck didn’t cover up any facts about the drug, but “Anonymous” likely knows this already.
Comment by Ted - February 8, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Don’t you want your doctors to know the risks on a drug he is putting you on. What I am hearing is that it was ok for Merck to hide data, leave dead people off the studies, issue “simply inconmprehensibele” press releases and dodge doctors questions. Merck’s advertising focused on older, heavier, more sedentary people. They did not say don’t take this if you are fat or don’t take this if you have heart disease or are at high risk for heart disease.
Comment by Meryl - February 8, 2006 at 3:30 pm

I ask you the following- Is it malicious to develope and market the sell of drugs when you know that they will cause CV’s? How can you take the risk of taking a drug if you have no idea what the risk is? I wonder why the FDA is not allowing Dr. Graham to testify? How does one become an expert if not through research. How would you feel about the drug if is was your father/mother or siblings that died because of the way that Vioxx affected Mr Irwin.
Comment by phil - February 8, 2006 at 4:11 pm

“Ted” seems like you have some tie to Merck or are affiliated with Merck. Did you know Mr. Irvin? I would say you probably did not and also do not know his health history. When I was at the Houston trial it clearly showed that the drug contributed to Mr. Irvin’s death. There is no reason to attack someone that can not defend themselves! Merck DID cover up the facts of this drug. If they did do the correct thing then why is there so many lawsuits and also so many things pointing bad at Merck?
Comment by Sherry - February 8, 2006 at 4:12 pm

I hope that the Irvin family gets a fair trial, but I feel they will not. Why—the jury selection in NO and the judge seens to favor the corporate world. Why does judge fallon not allow all the evidence to come out so that Merc’s true colors come through…anyone for dodge ball?
Comment by phil - February 8, 2006 at 4:30 pm

One thing that everyone seems to have missed is that there is no evidence that the rate of heart attacks in those taking Vioxx for only three weeks is any higher than it is for those in similar health taking nothing. I used Vioxx for chronic back pain when it was available and it was like miracle for pain relief. If it were still on the market I would take it again.
Comment by Jim - February 8, 2006 at 5:23 pm

Merck was performing post approval studies titled “VIGOR” when it pulled VIOX. these studies were not required. No post approval studies are ever. Don’t believe me? Look up CFR21 part 11 of the code of fedral regulation for pharmaceutical and cosmetic products and read through it.

Once the “Vigor” data was out and released by Merck after hiring a third party impartial company to explain the results to avoid conflict, they submitted the results to the FDA. the FDA recomended a “Black Box” Warning be added to the label. this is the highest form of warning the FDA can recomened be placed on a package. the FDA could have easily required the recall of Viox, it did not. Merck voulentarily pulled Viox because there were other pain medication w/o the high CV implications.

No body is denying that the CV implications are not substantial.

The question in any of these cases should first be “did viox contribute to the CV incedent”. If no, done.

I personally do not believe that Merck did hide anything. the fact that they debated the safety of the drug does not mean they believed it to be dangerous. All drugs have those debates prior to submision. the fact that they are documented and available clearly demonstrates that there was no cover up. Therfore the question is are they negligent in how they interpreted the data at hand. If a jury decides yes Viox caused the CV incedent and then yes Merck was negligent, fine award an appropriate amount.

These first law suits, which will not be reflecftive of them all, are out of hand. One week samples with a history of heart disease, give us a break. they are stealing tax payer dollars to process these cases.

Throw out the garbage cases, punish the lawyers who brought them to trial. Lets get to the really important cases and find out what happens.
Comment by Steve - February 8, 2006 at 6:59 pm

Did you not see the New England Journal of Med? stating that Merk left out 3 deaths in their VIGOR study? would that have caused the FDA to pull Vioxx off the market? I think this is about Merk and their Dollars. From the NE Journal, it does seem that there was an attempted coverup.
Comment by David - February 8, 2006 at 9:38 pm

This is another lawyer lottery. The financial penalties already imposed on Merck will slow theirs and all other pharmaceutical companies in bringing out any new drugs with the smallest of side effects. These cares are only about lawyers and their firms getting richer. The unintended consequence is one we will all suffer from the lack of new drug development.
Comment by Gary - February 9, 2006 at 12:05 am

Amazing reactions….

The issue isn’t that all drugs have side effects for a minority of users. It’s that Big Pharma thought putting Vioxx out in the market with deliberately misleading info re: fatal side effects was the way to go because, you know, honesty would have a negative effect on profits and that was more important than a couple of lives.

Also amazing — and offensive — is the number of posters here who seem to have an issue of accountability. It’s amazing how much conservatives loathe accountability when they’re caught. Accountability is alwys for the “other.” Shame. With the kind of “good conservative morality” many of the above posters show, it’s no wonder this country is in the dreadful shape it’s in.
Comment by Mitchell - February 9, 2006 at 4:47 am