Another stupid jury...

[Thunderbroom]

Jury finds Merck liable in landmark Vioxx case

Widow of Texas man who died after taking drug awarded $253 million

 

The Associated Press

Updated: 3:16 p.m. ET Aug. 19, 2005

 

A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable for the death of a man who took the once-popular painkiller Vioxx.

 

Jurors awarded Robert Ernst

[PaulyWally]

Was the jury stupid? Probably. Was the $253 million award honorable? Probably not.

 

But... the pharmaceutical companies deserve it.

[burdizzos]

Merck will soon be bankrupt.

 

 

I think there are about 120 additional class action suits.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by PaulyWally But... the pharmaceutical companies deserve it.

 

 

 

Why?

 

 

There was proof that this man's death was not related to vioxx.

[PaulyWally]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Why? There was proof that this man's death was not related to vioxx.

 

 

It reminds me of something my mom used to say if I was punished for something I didn't do.

 

"Consider it punishment for something else that you got away with."

 

I'm not laying judgement on this particular case since I was not in the court room during the trial. But the the pharmaceutical companies deserve much worse than a $253 million slap on the wrist. For the most part, they are immoral, greedy little pigs that couldn't give a damn about anyone or anything besides their profit margin. And since they are providing a type of care for the overall health of this nation... well... I would think that profits should not be their greatest concern.

 

And it's not 100% to blame on the drug companies. There are other issues with the system. But that is the context of this post... so I won't get into the other issues.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by PaulyWally It reminds me of something my mom used to say if I was punished for something I didn't do. "Consider it punishment for something else that you got away with." I'm not laying judgement on this particular case since I was not in the court room during the trial. But the the pharmaceutical companies deserve much worse than a $253 million slap on the wrist. For the most part, they are immoral, greedy little pigs that couldn't give a damn about anyone or anything besides their profit margin. And since they are providing a type of care for the overall health of this nation... well... I would think that profits should not be their greatest concern. And it's not 100% to blame on the drug companies. There are other issues with the system. But that is the context of this post... so I won't get into the other issues.

 

 

 

How many life saving drugs have you invented?

 

 

Punishing a company for something they may or may not have done when the charge agaisnt them is not even remotely vague is ridiculous. It will probably be overturned on appeal.

[J the D]

The award may be nullified by the judge and/or under appeal. With the other potential suits out there Merck will be totally unable to start settling or everybody and their mother will be lining up for a handout.

 

Irregardless, Vioxx apparently has some severe side effects that Merck new about and did not adequately communicate to users and the doctors prescribing it. They need to be held accountable.

[PaulyWally]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos How many life saving drugs have you invented?

 

 

This isn't an issue with what kind of "good" anyone has or hasn't done. The drug companies can very easily produce and distribute these "life-saving" drugs without being economical and political parasites on the back of America.

 

Also... you can't kill a person, then save someone else, and call yourself a savior.

 

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Punishing a company for something they may or may not have done when the charge agaisnt them is not even remotely vague is riiculous. It will probably be overturned on appeal.

 

 

I agree. And my comments were entirely un-"American". But ya know... life isn't fair for me or all the other Americans that have to endure the things that people (like the drug companies) force upon us. Maybe its about time someone bent them over the table and rammed them just as hard as they ram the rest of us.

 

So while my comments were un-"American"... their actions are also un-"American". And my comments wouldn't have been made in the absence of their actions.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by J the D Irregardless, Vioxx apparently has some severe side effects that Merck new about and did not adequately communicate to users and the doctors prescribing it. They need to be held accountable.

 

 

I completely agree, but this suit wasn't about Merck selling a potentially dangerous drug, it was about their drug killing someone.

 

Furthermore, shouldn't the FDA be held just as responsible since they appoved the drug based on Merck's research.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by PaulyWally This isn't an issue with what kind of "good" anyone has or hasn't done. The drug companies can very easily produce and distribute these "life-saving" drugs without being economical and political parasites on the back of America. Also... you can't kill a person, then save someone else, and call yourself a savior. I agree. And my comments were entirely un-"American". But ya know... life isn't fair for me or all the other Americans that have to endure the things that people (like the drug companies) force upon us. Maybe its about time someone bent them over the table and rammed them just as hard as they ram the rest of us. So while my comments were un-"American"... their actions are also un-"American". And my comments wouldn't have been made in the absence of their actions.

 

 

 

I think you really need to take a good long look at how drug companies work and their relationship with the FDA.

 

They are routinely bent over the table by the FDA which is a regulatory agency that probably does more harm than good.

 

Should the good samaritan laws be repealled? If I am performing CPR and someone dies should I be accountable for their lost wages if it is later determined that my actions caused their death because I did not clear the airway?

 

I never said anything about "un-american". The jury's verdict is in direct contradiction to how the legal process is supposed to work, but that's part of the system and that's why there is an appeals process.

[burdizzos]

Merck did everything right with Vioxx.

 

They got FDA approval and pulled it the instant they knew there was a possibility that it could increase the risk of a heart attack after prolonged use.

 

 

The messed up part is that most people who were using Vioxx had a greater risk of heart attack anyway due to their age.

 

I think it would be great if drug companies all just declared bankruptcy and let those who wish to do good witout profit fend for themselves.

[johnny6644]

Merck rushed the drug to market to get ahead of Celebrex.

 

Ignored for years warnings about the drug.

[pope_face]

Hmmm, I partially agree with both sides of the arguement. On the one hand, I do agree that pharmaceutical corporations, among many other corporations, are too focused on profit margins and push for effective medications and the like at the lowest cost to themselves. On the other hand, pharmaceutical corporations push for effective medications and the like at the lowest cost to themselves. These companies do a lot of good because they have the ability to do so. However, they could do a lot more good had they the inclination to do so. At the moment they're catering to the upper, or at least middle, echelons of society and thus leaving out the lower class. But I think I'm going way off topic here.

 

In this one case, based on the information provided, I think the jury did make a mistake. It seems as if the guy's death was natural, or at least brought upon himself. Also, didn't the doctor say that the man hadn't died of heart attack? Or that there was no evidence to suggest that he had died of a heart attack? And isn't that exactly what one of the side-effects of Vioxx is? Increased chance of heart attack? Now I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but if a person is taking a drug known to increase the risk of a certain condition, but does not die from that condition, then is that still the fault of the drug? Then again, this is all just speculation on what I can remember from the previous posts, so I may be entirely wrong.

 

All in all, I think pharmaceutical corporations should try to do more good, and put more emphasis on developing drugs and medication that can treat or help prevent or even give some hope to terminal diseases rather than cosmetic drugs. I mean, take Viagra for example. It's all good and all, and it does have its place, but what's the use of having a hard-on if you're HIV positive?

 

Philly

 

P.S.: Pardon my spelling... I tried, but nobody's perfikt...

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by PaulyWally This isn't an issue with what kind of "good" anyone has or hasn't done. The drug companies can very easily produce and distribute these "life-saving" drugs without being economical and political parasites on the back of America. Also... you can't kill a person, then save someone else, and call yourself a savior. I agree. And my comments were entirely un-"American". But ya know... life isn't fair for me or all the other Americans that have to endure the things that people (like the drug companies) force upon us. Maybe its about time someone bent them over the table and rammed them just as hard as they ram the rest of us. So while my comments were un-"American"... their actions are also un-"American". And my comments wouldn't have been made in the absence of their actions.

 

 

Nobody "killed" anyone. This penchant for blame is ridiculous. Merck didn't set out to make a drug that would kill people. In fact this case is the perfect example....THEIR DRUG DIDN'T KILL HIM. But if it had, this does not make them liable for damages. Where is the negligence? They spent years and millions to get a drug through the FDA's maze of red tape. Burdizzo's is right....why doesn't the FDA foot that award tab?

 

And WTF is that woman going to do with $254m, besides pay her lawyers? Yeah, that'll bring her husband back.

[Thunderbroom]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 Merck rushed the drug to market to get ahead of Celebrex. Ignored for years warnings about the drug.

 

 

Impossible...the FDA rushes nothing.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 Merck rushed the drug to market to get ahead of Celebrex. Ignored for years warnings about the drug.

 

 

*Every* drug is rushed to market. That rush is on average, about 8 years in the US. There's no sidestepping the drug Nazi's.

[PaulyWally]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos I think you really need to take a good long look at how drug companies work and their relationship with the FDA.

 

 

I work for a social services organization. We have a pharmacy just down the hall from my office. We have drug reps coming in and out of here weekly. I know how they work.

 

I do not work for the federal government and do not lobby for the drug companies on capitol hill. But I'm not stupid either. Regardless of what the FDA does or does not do, it's quite clear that the drug companies have my national representation in their pockets. And since the FDA is a government-run organization...

 

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm...

 

 

Originally posted by burdizzos They are routinely bent over the table by the FDA which is a regulatory agency that probably does more harm than good.

 

 

Yeah. Maybe. I don't have proof otherwise. Just some shady press clippings that make me turn my head in their general direction every other week.

 

If the FDA was so good at bending people over the table and stickin' it to 'em... then why... WHY have their been more drug recalls in the last decade than in the entire 20th century?

 

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Should the good samaritan laws be repealled? If I am performing CPR and someone dies should I be accountable for their lost wages if it is later determined that my actions caused their death because I did not clear the airway?

 

 

Apples and oranges

 

 

Originally posted by burdizzos I never said anything about "un-american". The jury's verdict is in direct contradiction to how the legal process is supposed to work, but that's part of the system and that's why there is an appeals process.

 

 

No... I said it was un-"American" because I know what I said was not constitutional in any way. But my point was simple: You can argue me on the basis that what I said negated our legal system. In return, I will argue that the drug companies negate my constitutional rights on a daily basis... and get away with it.

[burdizzos]

Look at what Vioxx does and who its target audience was.

 

It was to help people with joint pain lead normal lives, most of which were over the age of 60.

 

So you take a group of 60 + year olds who can't move too much because of arthritic pain and instantly relieve them of pain enabling them to move more than they have in years.

 

Add in Viagra to put the new found mobility to use and you've got a heart attack.

 

Vioxx elevate the blood pressure of a significant number of its users, but that could have been held in check if the users would have monitored themselves.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by PaulyWally You can argue me on the basis that what I said negated our legal system. In return, I will argue that the drug companies negate my constitutional rights on a daily basis... and get away with it.

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see your explaination of that pile of crap.

 

 

 

There is a direc conflict of interest between the FDA and the drug companies. Many people who work at the FDA are former drug co. emplolyees and often own stock in those counties. The FDA lacks the objectivity to do its job correctly.

 

 

You're stating that if a drug company makes a mistake, which I'm not convinced they did, they should be crucified, but a good samaritan should get a free pass. That is most certainly not apples and oranges.

 

What happens when drug companies are sued out of existence?

 

Who will make the drugs needed to fight off the ills that face us?

[PaulyWally]

Originally posted by burdizzos I'd like to see your explaination of that pile of crap. There is a direc conflict of interest between the FDA and the drug companies. Many people who work at the FDA are former drug co. emplolyees and often own stock in those counties. The FDA lacks the objectivity to do its job correctly.

 

I have no idea what you just said. I'm not trying to be an ass... but to me, it sounded like you made two opposing statements:

 

1.) Drug Companies and FDA are polar opposites.

2.) FDA employees own stock in drug companies.

 

Seems to me... there would be MORE reason for a FDA employee to cut a few corners when approving a drug that is proposed by a company they own stock in.

 

Originally posted by burdizzos You're stating that if a drug company makes a mistake, which I'm not convinced they did, they should be crucified, but a good samaritan should get a free pass. That is most certainly not apples and oranges.

 

The drug companies are doing it for MONEY.

The "Good Samaritan" is not making a freakin nickel from helping someone.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

And I'm saying they deserve it for the parasites they are... not for what they may or may not have done in this particular case.

 

Originally posted by burdizzos What happens when drug companies are sued out of existence? Who will make the drugs needed to fight off the ills that face us?

 

First off, what's the difference? Everyone is getting sued. Doctors and hospitals are getting sued left and right. They had to close a Las Vegas emergency room last year because of lawsuits. Imagine all the people that couldn't get medical attention?!

 

Parasitic lawyers are whole new can of worms that I don't want to open up.

 

But regarding your question... drug companies (and their puppets we call "doctors") use their financial power to mask many natural and inexpensive remedies from the people of America. We wouldn't need 95% of the drugs they produce if we weren't such a medication-hungry society. Also consider that a good portion of their drugs don't even solve ailments... they only hide the symptoms (and sometimes cause more).

 

Yeah... cause that's real logical.

[Rowka]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Who will make the drugs needed to fight off the ills that face us?

 

The Chinese and Koreans.

[burdizzos]

Originally posted by PaulyWally I have no idea what you just said. I'm not trying to be an ass... but to me, it sounded like you made two opposing statements: 1.) Drug Companies and FDA are polar opposites. 2.) FDA employees own stock in drug companies. Seems to me... there would be MORE reason for a FDA employee to cut a few corners when approving a drug that is proposed by a company they own stock in. The drug companies are doing it for MONEY. The "Good Samaritan" is not making a freakin nickel from helping someone. Apples and oranges. And I'm saying they deserve it for the parasites they are... not for what they may or may not have done in this particular case. First off, what's the difference? Everyone is getting sued. Doctors and hospitals are getting sued left and right. They had to close a Las Vegas emergency room last year because of lawsuits. Imagine all the people that couldn't get medical attention?! Parasitic lawyers are whole new can of worms that I don't want to open up. But regarding your question... drug companies (and their puppets we call "doctors") use their financial power to mask many natural and inexpensive remedies from the people of America. We wouldn't need 95% of the drugs they produce if we weren't such a medication-hungry society. Also consider that a good portion of their drugs don't even solve ailments... they only hide the symptoms (and sometimes cause more). Yeah... cause that's real logical.

 

 

My point is that the FDA only messes thing up worse because they not only don't do their job, but they also purposely hold up other life saing drugs because it isn't in their fininacial interest.

 

 

So the instant money changes hands there is a moral obligation, but pro bono incometence is tolerated and even encouraged? Kick ass logic right there!

 

 

Where did that 95% figure come from?

 

Placebos do an amazing job because many ailments are all in the patient's mind. Hell, Chiropractic is a big money maker and it's based on total BS.

[beam]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Hell, Chiropractic is a big money maker and it's based on total BS.

 

 

Well, that isn't totally true.

Though I'm still not sure why the ruled against Merck if there wasn't pretty solid evidence..

[lug]

Originally posted by PaulyWally First off, what's the difference? Everyone is getting sued. Doctors and hospitals are getting sued left and right. They had to close a Las Vegas emergency room last year because of lawsuits. Imagine all the people that couldn't get medical attention?! Exactly the problem with this lawsuit Parasitic lawyers are whole new can of worms that I don't want to open up. Why not? They are the real reason for many of the problems with the medical system in this country. But regarding your question... drug companies (and their puppets we call "doctors") use their financial power to mask many natural and inexpensive remedies from the people of America. mask how? Are you saying medical doctors in general are purposfully withholding their knowledge just to sell unuseful drugs? If so, you are flat out wrong. We wouldn't need 95% of the drugs they produce if we weren't such a medication-hungry society. Also consider that a good portion of their drugs don't even solve ailments... they only hide the symptoms (and sometimes cause more). when your symptom is cronic pain, "hiding" it is really appreciated by the sufferer. Doctors aren't magicians and sometimes treating the pain is all they can do.

 

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by beam Well, that isn't totally true. Though I'm still not sure why the ruled against Merck if there wasn't pretty solid evidence..

 

 

Chiropractic is total crap, that's the truth. It only works because people buy into it. THere's a reason why the first thing a chiropractor does is explain the history of chiropractic treatment. I've never had a real doctor explain to me how a drug works because the result is proof that it works.

 

 

Tey ruled against Merck because they feel the same way that Pauly feels about drug companies, they felt sorry for the woman and they and they felt empowered by doing it.