AEI on Vioxx

Yankee’s pitcher Roger Clemens told “60 Minutes” last night that he was “eating Vioxx like it was Skittles.” And Theodore Frank, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, proposed (tongue in cheek, mind you) that the anti-inflammatory drug may have done more for Clemens’ pitching arm than most would like to admit. After all, when Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug in 2004, Clemens’ pitching started to slide.

But, as Frank pointed out at an AEI panel discussion today on the implications of the Vioxx settlement, just because Clemens’ pitching stats fell after he stopped taking the drug doesn’t mean that the drug helped his fast ball. Similarly, just because some people who took Vioxx had heart attacks, doesn’t mean that the drug caused them, necessarily.

In November of last year, Merck & Co. negotiated a settlement proposal with plaintiffs attorneys that, if 85 percent of the claimants agree to it, will give $4.85 billion to the thousands of claimants and their lawyers. But as the AEI panel showed, opinions vary greatly on the settlement.

Mark Herrmann, a defense attorney with Jones Day in Chicago, said the settlement “made sense. It was logical, and it, in fact, was predictable from the start.”

But George Cohen, a law professor at the University of Virginia, had some ethical concerns with the proposed settlement. The terms of the agreement could stand in the way of lawyers giving their clients adequate advice. “The temptation will be, I fear, that lawyers will want to recommend this to people even if it’s not in their best interest,” says Cohen.

Andy Birchfield, an attorney at Beasley Allen and co-lead counsel on the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee for the federal Vioxx litigation, countered that the settlement had been designed so that plaintiffs attorneys couldn’t “game the system” or cherry pick the best cases to leave out of the settlement.

Frank said that the settlement, in the end, took money away from innocent shareholders and investors—"the widows and orphans who own Merck stock."

Comments

[Dennis Harrison, M.B.A. BGS]

The vIOXX Plaintiff Education Group (VPEG) is a blog of almost 300 vIOXX victims - with much to care and share over. It works hard to provide much information and education versus sharing. It also has several items, involving working "the issues" which suggest some active goals. The members are all respective of each other. You will find a great of sympathetic vIOXX victims that are the same boat as the average vIOXX litigant.
….
Feel free to check it out and join, nothing ventured, nothing gained. VPEG welcomes vIOXX victims that just wish information, wish to share, with to act, etc. - all are very welcome!
….
The link is:
….
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MerckSettlement/
….
Sincerely
Dennis Harrison
Catskill, NY
Vioxx Plaintiff

[VIDEOMASTER]

get ready for round 2 merck

[Sue]

The Settlement is between Merck and the plaintiff lawyers. Most plaintiffs will end up with very little if any,after the lawyers fees and insurance liens. These poor people lost their jobs, some their lives and most lost their health. They will be taking tests, many medications and living shorter lives. Why? because Merck didn't put the truth out there and instead made a lot of money at these plaintiffs espense. This Settlement needs to go back to the drawing board and be reworked. Remember this is American and we have freedoms like no other country. We should have the freedom to accept the Settlement or not and still keep our lawyer. What incentive does the lawyer have to help his own client?

[Benedict R. Lucchesi, MD, PhD, FAHA]

Throughout the entire debate over Vioxx and its potential to do harm, one important fact has been overlooked.

A Google Search will show that Merck anticipated the development of adverse thrombotic events as far back as the mid-1990s. The Merck scientists, including Dr.Scolnick filed at least five patents in which the claimed invention was to combine a COX-2 inhibitor with a thromboxane synthase inhibitor or a thromboxane receptor antagonist. The expressed goal was to prevent thromboembolic event secondary to inhibition of COX-2 dependent synthesis of prostacyclin. Merck abandoned their efforts when it was becoming clear that they had to get to market before GD Searle introduced celecoxib.

Patents are in the public domain and there is no reason why the information contained in the documents cannot be brought before the jury and the victims who suffered because of a defective product.

The important point is that Merck knew that there was a potential for harm, but put profits ahead of safety concerns for the patients. This is criminal and the victims are entitled to compensation.

[Henry Smith]

If you are a Vioxx Victim/plaintiff wondering what to make of the settlement and pondering your options visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MerckSettlement/
This is a discussion group of Vioxx Plaintiffs discussing/educating each other on the merits/problems with the Settlement

[co1yos]

I'm sorry that we might be taking money from the unfortunate Merck stock holders but Merck took a part of my heart.It has also left orphans and widows. This settlement sounds like a lot of money but believe me, the plaintiffs are not getting the bulk of this money. Most will go to lawyers and insurance companies. Most of us willnot get enough to cover future medical bills.