At the start of the recent Merck/Vioxx trial, this post noted the dearth of clinical evidence that Vioxx was a particularly risky drug.
In light of last week’s big verdict in the case, long-time Clear Thinkers favorite James D. Hamilton (prior posts here) evaluates one of the recent clinical studies on Vioxx and explains the study’s statistical basis for the conclusion that there is a slightly elevated risk of heart attack for certain Vioxx users. Professor Hamilton then juxtaposes the following question against one of plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Lanier’s more disingenuous questions during the trial:
How did we arrive at a system in which 12 random Texans are assigned responsibility for evaluating the scientific merits of statistical evidence of this type, weighing the costs and benefits, and potentially sending a productive blue-chip American company into bankruptcy protection?
Smug Superiority Complex
Econbrowser: Murky future for Merck (Via Tom K) Two points to highlight in a seemingly articulate post on the dangers that Merck now faces due to the $26M liability the firm now has from a court case. Point the first…
Especially 12 random Texans who say things like this (from WSJ) http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112447069284018316,00.html?mod=todays_us_page_one:
“Whenever Merck was up there, it was like wah, wah, wah,” said juror John Ostrom, imitating the sounds Charlie Brown’s teacher makes in the television cartoon. “We didn’t know what the heck they were talking about.”
***
Mr. Ostrom, 49, who has a business remodeling homes, was also disturbed that former Merck Chief Executive Raymond Gilmartin and another top Merck official gave videotaped testimony but weren’t in the courtroom. “The big guys didn’t show up,” said Mr. Ostrom. “That didn’t sit well with me. Most definitely an admission of guilt.”
***
That speculation about a blood clot was enough for Matthew Pallardy, a 24-year-old juror. “We kind of figured there was one there, but it went away real quick,” said Mr. Pallardy. The issue “wasn’t a snag. It wasn’t a very big debate.” Another juror, Derrick Chizer, said as long as the clot existed “for a millisecond” that was enough. [ed – this gets you to 51%?]
The Vioxx trial was totally fair, and Merck are a bunch of truth-hiding bastards.
It has to be true. The NYTimes says so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/business/21vioxx
You’ll need to add a ” .html ” to the end of that URL. The comment form blocks it otherwise.