This heart attack had absolutely nothing to do with Vioxx.
The jury decided otherwise, and they get to make the decision in this case.
And herein lays one of the major problems - people equating jury verdicts with the truth.
A physician mentor of mine often was called as an expert witness for the defense in physician malpractice cases. As he used to tell me back when I would get angry about such cases, "The first thing you need to realize is that the court system has little to do with the truth." Just ask OJ's in-laws. Just ask the decedents of any black lynched back when it was fashionable to do so.
Don't like it? Write your congressman and get the law changed.
Oh trust me - I'm doing plenty about it. The more you argue with me, the more you bring the disinfecting light of day to the surface.
Did you know, Gene, that the scumbag lawyer John Edwards did not carry either his state of birth of South Carolina, or the state he represented of North Carolina in the presidential election? Ever wonder how that could have happened? The truth shall set you free.
But in this case, and in legions of others, the risks of Vioxx therapy were minimized, underplayed or lied about in order to increase market share. If Merck had come clean from the beginning (like they were supposed to)about the risks of Vioxx, and if the prescriber had done his/her job when warning the deceased about the risks of Vioxx (like he/she is supposed to), then there would be no case, even if there was causation.
Surely you believe in justice, right Gene? There was no causation - period.
I thought you defended the role of lawyers in society, Gene. It doesn't matter whether or not you like or don't like the way Merck does business, or what doctors told patients. That doesn't give ambulance chasers the right to steal money from people who do real work - just because the money is there. The end should not justify the means.
But if you prefer a society where people can take money whenever they feel entitled to it and the rule of law does not matter, I'm sure I can give you a few suggestions.
But in this case, and in legions of others, the risks of Vioxx therapy were minimized, underplayed or lied about in order to increase market share.
The problem is that we as a society got what we asked for. And when it didn't turn out right, folks want to blame someone.
There's always someone ELSE to blame, right? That's the American way, right?
The FDA was pressured by our society and by Congress to speed the approval process. The FDA was asked to get drugs to the market faster because HIV and cancer patients were dieing and they needed new treatments fast. The process was streamlined for the benefit of the consumer. And without more long-term studies, guess what? More drugs get on the market with unknown long-term effects. Should we be surprised? Should we as a society blame the drug companies that we just enabled to do exactly what we asked them to do? Should we feel a right to take money from them? That money, after all, will never kill or "punish" Merck. Merck will survive just fine. Instead, it will increase the cost of healthcare, and lower the value of retirement accounts of people living on relatively fixed incomes.
You're listening to and regurgitating lawyer language designed to rationalize their thievery. Science is a peer-reviewed process with point and counterpoint from step one to the retirement of a drug. We NEED a free
process to debate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of products. As soon as the scumbags come in and use pieces and parts of the scientific debate out of context as an excuse to steal money, guess what happens? Drug companies will hide negative findings. I'm shocked!!!
And the drug companies do an honorable job in advancing the science of drug therapy to treat our afflictions. But time and time again they accentuate the positives of their drugs and don't even want to discuss the negatives.
This kind of argument reminds me of a spouse who throws private communication up into the face of their partner as ammunition when they argue, and then wonders why they never communicate any more.
All these lawsuits are going to do is increase the secrecy of the research. That unintended consequence is a disservice to society. The consumer loses in the end. The litigation is not the solution; it is a ROOT CAUSE of the problem.
If Merck, Pfizer, etc can advertise their goods and services, how come lawyers can't advertise their goods and services either?
I'm all for it, Gene, as long as the networks will give equal time to lawyers who sue other lawyers for malpractice or for filing a suit against an innocent party. But that NEVER happens, does it, Gene?
It's honor amongst thieves. I know racketeering when I see it. So do the lawyers. They know a good idea when they steal it.
I'm sure the judge would be surprised. He/she probably had multiple opportunities to dismiss this case, but didn't. Does Texas have a tribunal system?
Yea, yea.... Former lawyers watching out for misbehavior amongst lawyers. In my book, that's the fox guarding the chicken coop.
Why not let industry peers decide when a suit would be thrown out? But that'll never happen as long as there's money to be stolen. It's Sutton's law, you know.
In modern jurisprudence, no plaintiff ever won a malpractice suit that was held up on appeal where just a bad outcome was involved. Give me examples and prove me wrong.
Can you say Cerebral Palsy? Can you say silicone implants?
Sorry, Gene, science has long ago proven you wrong. Ask John Edwards how much of the ill-gotten gains he has given back. And check out how many careers were ruined, and how many poor women in rural areas have reduced access to proper neonatal and delivery care.
Furthermore, the appeals process just perpetuates the problem - lawyers earning money off of people doing real work. You obviously take society to be as ill-informed as you are on the subject.
I'm happy you have lots of time and emotional energy and a limitless bank account to fight in court for years. I'm happy for you that you don't mind writing those checks to the lawyers who make money fighting other lawyers making money.
Go ahead, Gene. Move to a rural area, and see if you can find an OB to deliver your wife's baby. It isn't going to happen in many places in this country today because of the very thing you say could NEVER happen.
In the end, it's the little guy who takes it in the tush.
If Merck had just come clean from the beginning they would not be in this mess. They are not the first drug company to suffer the fate of hubris, and I'm sick and tired of waiting for them to get the damn message.
Oh they most definitely got the message, Gene. It's their response to this "message" that will continue to frustrate you (unless you are part of the meal ticket).
Merck, and Dow Corning, and Philip Morris, and every other company that the victim-minded in this society want to "get" are going to do just fine.
Meanwhile... Don't complain to the rest of the world when:
* There's MORE secrecy in research
* The price of healthcare goes up
* More employers elect not to offer healthcare as a benefit
* More families - even insured ones - are forced to declare bankruptcy when there is an episode of chronic or serious illness in the family.
* The value of your retirement account goes down
* The price of all products and services - especially American made - goes up
* Jobs go overseas because there's less litigation there and the smart people take on careers that actually produce something
* The healthcare system orders tests you don't really need (a.k.a. defensive medicine)
* Your doctor spends more time filling out paperwork, and less time seeing you
* Your physician refuses to do risky treatments that might save your life
* Drug companies refuse to do research for treatment of rare conditions
* You'll rarely see a politician you (Gene) like make it into the White House