Posted on 08/22/2005 3:42:22 PM PDT by The SISU kid
Merck & Co. sought patent protection for a way to reduce cardiovascular problems in Cox-2 inhibitors, the class of drugs that includes Vioxx, as early as 1998 — a year before the popular pain killer was introduced, newly disclosed documents show.
The application suggests that Merck was attempting to reformulate the drugs targeted for arthritis sufferers two years earlier than had been previously disclosed. But while the patent was granted in September 1999 by the World Intellectual Property Organization, Merck officials say no product with those properties was ever introduced.
Instead, Merck began marketing Vioxx in the United States soon after it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in May 1999.
Merck stopped selling Vioxx last September after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attack and strokes for patients taking it for at least 18 months. That triggered a stampede to courthouses, with more than 4,000 lawsuits already filed against the drug maker.
Mark Lanier, the Texas lawyer who last week won a $253.4 million verdict against Merck at the first Vioxx suit to be tried, said the 1998 patent application provides further evidence that the company knew about the drug's dangers even before it was introduced — and marketed it anyway.
But Merck lawyer Ted Mayer said the company knew that Cox-2 inhibitors didn't have the cardioprotective properties of other pain relievers such as aspirin and was trying to enhance the class of drugs, not hide any defects. Cox-2 inhibitors were designed to be gentler on the stomach than aspirin and Mayer said Merck sought to create a drug that would avoid the side effects of gastrointestinal bleeding while still offering cardioprotective benefits.
"We were not trying to fix a problem," Mayer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ugh - the Texas verdict turns my stomach.
Merck is one of the most ethically "clean" companies in the pharma industry; they saw a problem, and acted on it. Ironic that Pfizer's Celebrex has similar problems, but no press since Pfizer didn't pull the drug.
Americans have to get out of the magic pill mindset and realize that powerful medicines are likely to have powerful side effects. It is up to the physician to discuss the side effects with a patient and make an educated, risk-balanced choice.
Incidentally, am I the only one disgusted by the supposed juror statements about "zoning out" during the defense's presentation of medical evidence? What, no channel clicker?
Did 4,000 people die from this drug?
Read David Grahm's (who works in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety) estimate here...
No, you're not the only one.
I think we're going to have to reduce our level of drug therapy effectiveness to the point where people JUST DIE. Since we don't seem capable of selecting juries with reasonable cognitive skills or making laws that prevent these types of extortion, I think we have to let the system degenerate before "the people" will demand that we bring it back.
God I detest these blood sucking bastards.
There is ample evidence of jury misconduct. Jurors have spoken out openly that they were unconvinced that the plaintiff actually died as a result of Vioxx. But the Baptist preacher plaintiff attorney told them to "send Merck a message", and they have told reporters that is exactly what they did.
This is not legal. Jurors failed to find a preponderance of the the evidence against Merck. "Sending a message" is not justice, it is the politics of envy.
This verdict must be overturned. And jury trials must be outlawed for commercial cases. Americans are simply too damn stupid to do their job properly on a jury.
Amazing..this is a guy in the FDA making this assertion.
So, I wonder why there aren't 60,000 lawzoots?
Amen!
You have to hope for some sort of appeal.
The jury pool is definitely a problem. I think the key issues are that anyone reasonable is (a) selected off the jury, or (b) too busy to be able to be a juror for how ever many week/months tort lawyers will be able to drag out the case so as to boost fees. These are compunded by the generally low sense of civic resonsibility currently in vogue.
Three things need to be done:
1) The process has to be streamlined. I am not sure how to accomplish this, but I am sure that others on FR with more legal background and could comment on it. Perhaps higher standards for selecting a juror off a jury would be a step in the right direction. (3) on my list would probably help as well.
2) In the of "how much can I sue for" type cases, I think it would be more productive to have the "loser" pay ALL of the legal fees for the case. This would help poorer plaintiffs with strong cases get better legal representation while creating a risk-based barrier to entry for fluff lawsuits (eg, McDonald coffee spills to the groin) that are often settled out of court.
3) Capped awards, so platiniffs (and disreputable lawyers) don't see a lawsuit as winning the lottery.
4) Loser pays!
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.