Another stupid jury...

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by Craigv *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.

 

 

 

So there's no way, given our perfect system, and honest drug companies, that Merck is responsible?

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 So there's no way, given our perfect system, and honest drug companies, that Merck is responsible?

 

 

Responsible for what? Robert Ernst's death?

 

The evidence says that Vioxx had nothign to do with is death.

 

 

Now, is Vioxx guilty of with holding information about possible long term side effects? That as yet to me determined.

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Responsible for what? Robert Ernst's death? The evidence says that Vioxx had nothign to do with is death. Now, is Vioxx guilty of with holding information about possible long term side effects? That as yet to me determined.

 

 

 

They had a trial, heard evidence, and gave the dead guy's wife a bunch of money. I guess you should have showed them the evidence you have that Vioxx wasn't responsible.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 They had a trial, heard evidence, and gave the dead guy's wife a bunch of money. I guess you should have showed them the evidence you have that Vioxx wasn't responsible.

 

 

I guess you should read up on it a bit before talkng out of your ass.

 

 

The jury's decision was based entirely on emotion.

 

In a civil suit, only 10 of the 12 jurors must agree for a decision to be reached. That was the case in this suit.

[bbl]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Chiropractic is total crap, that's the truth.

 

 

No, that's your opinion. I hope you can tell the difference.

[lug]

Originally posted by johnny6644 They had a trial, heard evidence, and gave the dead guy's wife a bunch of money. I guess you should have showed them the evidence you have that Vioxx wasn't responsible.

 

Yeh, they are every bit as guilty as OJ is innocent!

 

 

 

 

[bbl]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos I guess you should read up on it a bit before talkng out of your ass. The jury's decision was based entirely on emotion. In a civil suit, only 10 of the 12 jurors must agree for a decision to be reached. That was the case in this suit.

 

 

Perhaps you should have been on the jury before talking about it as if you were.

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos I guess you should read up on it a bit before talkng out of your ass. The jury's decision was based entirely on emotion. In a civil suit, only 10 of the 12 jurors must agree for a decision to be reached. That was the case in this suit.

 

 

Guess I touched a nerve. Speaking of pulling it out of your ass, when did you poll all ten jurors who voted against Merck and determine their emotional state?

[burdizzos]

I read the court transcripts, I read what the jury heard and I know that the plaintiff's attorney did not prove that Merck was responsible for Robert Ernst's death.

 

What the plaintiff's attorney did do was point out that Merck was possibly a bit irresponsible in taking Vioxx to the market without sufficient testing.

 

Those are two different things, even someone who believes in chiropractic can appreciate that.

 

The defense was arrogant and did a bad job of separating the issues at hand.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 Guess I touched a nerve. Speaking of pulling it out of your ass, when did you poll all ten jurors who voted against Merck and determine their emotional state?

 

 

Read the post above.

 

Emotional state has nothing to do with what's right and wrong.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 Guess I touched a nerve. Speaking of pulling it out of your ass, when did you poll all ten jurors who voted against Merck and determine their emotional state?

 

 

 

 

If it wasn't emotion, then explain the award.

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos I read the court transcripts, I read what the jury heard and I know that the plaintiff's attorney did not prove that Merck was responsible for Robert Ernst's death. What the plaintiff's attorney did do was point out that Merck was possibly a bit irresponsible in taking Vioxx to the market without sufficient testing. Those are two different things, even someone who believes in chiropractic can appreciate that. The defense was arrogant and did a bad job of separating the issues at hand.

 

 

In the opinion of ten jurors plaintiff's attorney did prove Merck responsible. They did find Merck a bit responsible.

 

I'm not sure where you're going with the chiropractic thing, though.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 In the opinion of ten jurors plaintiff's attorney did prove Merck responsible. They did find Merck a bit responsible. I'm not sure where you're going with the chiropractic thing, though.

 

 

"a bit" responsible gets you a $254M verdict?

 

Oh, and more proof of the emotion aspect. How many, five, of the jurors were women? And the plaintiff's a widow? Hmm, yeah, no emotion there. 'Cuz women are completely logical and know how to make decisions without emotion.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by johnny6644 In the opinion of ten jurors plaintiff's attorney did prove Merck responsible. They did find Merck a bit responsible. I'm not sure where you're going with the chiropractic thing, though.

 

 

I'm aware of what the jury's decision was, thanks for restating it.

 

Just because the opinion 10 jurors was that Merck was responsible doesn't make it so. Up until about 500 years ago, more than 5/6 of the world's population thought the world was flat.

 

If jury decisions are perfect and always right, then why do we have such an elaborate appeals process?

 

How many juries of 12 have wrongly convicted people of murder?

 

The chiropractice thing was pointed at bbl.

[burdizzos]

 

Originally posted by Craigv "a bit" responsible gets you a $254M verdict? Oh, and more proof of the emotion aspect. How many, five, of the jurors were women? And the plaintiff's a widow? Hmm, yeah, no emotion there. 'Cuz women are completely logical and know how to make decisions without emotion.

 

 

The fact that the widow sat in the front row of the courtroom and cried on cue throughout the trial had nothing to do with it either.

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by Craigv If it wasn't emotion, then explain the award.

 

 

Okay, okay, I'm not saying these jurors were small-town Vulcans, all emotionless and stuff, but maybe, just maybe, they heard the evidence and, based on that, rendered their verdict.

 

And using their large throbbing brains, they awarded a huge award because they know that a huge drug company with unlimited legal resources will whittle away at it for the next twenty years.

 

Not that I'm getting emotional or stuff.

[burdizzos]

Originally posted by johnny6644 Okay, okay, I'm not saying these jurors were small-town Vulcans, all emotionless and stuff, but maybe, just maybe, they heard the evidence and, based on that, rendered their verdict. And using their large throbbing brains, they awarded a huge award because they know that a huge drug company with unlimited legal resources will whittle away at it for the next twenty years. Not that I'm getting emotional or stuff.

 

 

I thought speculating as to the emotional state of the jurors was forbidden.

 

Basing an award on what the defendant can afford is also contrary to the purpose of a civil suit.

[johnny6644]

Originally posted by burdizzos I thought speculating as to the emotional state of the jurors was forbidden. Basing an award on what the defendant can afford is also contrary to the purpose of a civil suit.

 

 

My lame previous attempt was to suggest that maybe they made a logical decision, not based on emotion.

 

My theory is that after intellectually rendering a decision on Merck's responsiblity, they got really mad and awarded the butt-load of money.

[PaulyWally]

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.

 

We're in agreement here.

 

Where did that 95% figure come from?

 

It was a guesstimate. As someone said in another thread, 68% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I actually thought it was closer to 54.8%... but who's counting?

 

Seriously... the figure is certainly not accurate. But based on my experiences as, not only a consumer, but also with my experience in the health care industry... it's pretty damn close to that.

 

Hell, Chiropractic is a big money maker and it's based on total BS

 

That's another argument. But I've known many people to make that claim. They all have one thing in common... they've never experienced natural health care methods that are so prevelant in other areas of the world (as a student or a recipient).

 

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

 

I'm saying that many (if not most) doctors get drugs jammed so far down their throats, from medical school on up to their careers, that they don't know any better. The drug companies are pulling their strings like they're puppets. The sad thing is, as doctors, they are supposed to know better. They are supposed to know more than us. Many times (far too often)... they don't.

 

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.

 

Chronic pain? What about it? Try increasing blood circulation to the affected area. I'll bet over 90% of the time, the pain will be gone in a week. Pain killers numb your neuro-transmitters. Doesn't much sound like fixing the problem to me. Only masking it.

 

Here's a great example that is sweeping money into the drug companies' pockets as we speak: Cholesterol-Lowering Medication.

 

The issue is, cholesterol buildup in your arteries does not happen for no reason. Our bodies are smarter than we give them credit for. But hey... let's produce a drug that stunts the liver's production of cholesterol so that "Mr. Middle-Aged Heart-Attack Risk" can sleep without anxiety.

 

Suppose he has arterial damage caused by too much glucose intake? One function of cholesterol is to repair damaged areas of the arterial wall. But that's OK. Instead of telling him to lay off the Mountain Dew, we'll just reduce his chlolesterol production. Meh...

[bbl]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by bbl http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/prescription/hazard/independent.html

 

 

can I add one?

 

hope this works:

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tortmyths14aug14,1,1359149.story?coll=la-headlines-business

[bbl]

 

Originally posted by Craigv "a bit" responsible gets you a $254M verdict? Oh, and more proof of the emotion aspect. How many, five, of the jurors were women? And the plaintiff's a widow? Hmm, yeah, no emotion there. 'Cuz women are completely logical and know how to make decisions without emotion.

 

 

What an offensive and ignorant thing to say. You make assumptions about how someone thinks, someone you don't know, based on their gender. And you call it "more proof."

 

You've only proven that a man can react emotionally and without logic.

[g.ghost]

If only the Americans wouldn't be quite so quick to sue every Tom Dick & Harry for any little thing....

 

It will get to the point when there won't be any drug companies willing to spend the huge amounts of money needed to come up with new safe drugs.

 

The same with car companies .....why spend the money to develope a new product when you end up getting sued and spending $$$ on court costs, lawyer expenses and huge settlements.

 

Why bother???

 

The only people winning are the lawyers.

[beam]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos Chiropractic is total crap, that's the truth. It only works because people buy into it.

 

 

I disagree.

[The Aardvark]

All these people who want to "stick it to the corporations" don't seem to realize they are actually sticking it to themselves in several different ways. Higher prices, Job layoffs and increased death and suffering due to slower medical advancements to name a few. Yes corporations need to be controlled but I don't think destroying the company is the way to do it. Maybe the answer is to make the top managers of the company more personally responsible (I wouldn't mind seeing the entire board of directors of Walmart being tried for treason).