Posted on 07/28/2005 10:26:54 AM PDT by The SISU kid
ANGLETON, Texas - The pathologist whose 2001 autopsy of a Texas man is central to the nation's first Vioxx-related civil trial told attorneys in a deposition that his death from arrhythmia, or an irregular heartbeat, was probably brought on by a heart attack.
"Arrhythmia does not spontaneously occur. Something must trigger it," Dr. Maria Araneta told attorneys on both sides of the lawsuit, according to a transcript of the deposition obtained by The Associated Press.
She said Robert Ernst, whose widow, Carol, is the plaintiff in the case, probably had a heart attack because a blood clot blocked blood flow in an artery already clogged with plaque. However, vigorous CPR conducted on Ernst - including pounding on his chest that fractured some of his ribs - probably dislodged the clot and his sudden death left no time for his heart to show damage, she said.
"Vigorous CPR could dislodge a clot. Also, the clot may be small. It doesn't have to be a big clot to cause a myocardial infarction," she said, using the medical term for heart attack.
Araneta also conceded that sudden cardiac death with clogged arteries can occur without a heart attack.
The legal team for Vioxx maker Merck & Co. has relied heavily on Araneta's autopsy report, which attributed Ernst's death to arrhythmia secondary to blocked arteries.
The company pulled the popular painkiller from the market last year when a study showed it doubled risk of heart attack or stroke, but Merck contends no studies link Vioxx to arrhythmia and therefore the drug couldn't have caused Ernst's death. Ernst took Vioxx to ease pain in his hands. He took the drug for eight months before he died.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesleader.com ...
Hardly. The case against Vioxx and other cox inhibitors is weak, but a gullible jury might believe the lies.
What's still missing is proof that his taking Vioxx contributed to his death in a significant way.
People die due to heat failure. There's been one study that has showed an increase in a person's chance of heart attack or stroke.
How may people were in the study? Was the study large enough that the doubling of the chance was statistically significant?
What was done in the study to limit the number of factors involved that could have been responsible to Vioxx?
If you haven't noticed, I'm very skeptical of these lawyers who make millions sueing companies that are trying to produce drugs that save lives, or at least increase people's quality of life.
There's always people willing to sue companies that have lots of money, and there's always lawyers willing to take on such cases regardless of the merrit of the case.
It's up to them to prove that in this specific case, Vioxx significantly contributed to this person's death. To do that they need to have more than studies that show that stitistically there is an increased chance of stroke or heart attack. That's not evidence that this particular person was harmed by Vioxx. It's just a trial lawyer playing the odds that he'll get a sympathetic jury sooner of later with one such cases and hit the jackpot.
I didn't mean to imply that you were. I was just commenting on the article you posted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.