- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 67
- 91
MERCK WINS SECOND VIOXX TRIAL!
- Thread starter IHateMyJob2004
- Start date
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,238
- 136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Of course, Profits over human life.
You are right Dave, this is a win for human health care and life over the profits of trial lawyers. Pharma money is best spent on researching new medicines and saving laves rather than lining the pockets of shady lawyers. :thumbsup:
dahunan
Lifer
- Jan 10, 2002
- 18,191
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Of course, Profits over human life.
You are right Dave, this is a win for human health care and life over the profits of trial lawyers. Pharma money is best spent on researching new medicines and saving laves rather than lining the pockets of shady lawyers. :thumbsup:
So, you are saying that Big Pharma is less CORRUPT than a Trial Lawyer? If you truly think they are then by how much would you say they are.. 5%, 10%?
Big pharma isn't corrupt. Their products save lives. I'm glad to see there's a competent jury that doesn't want to stick it to the evil rich companies.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,238
- 136
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Of course, Profits over human life.
You are right Dave, this is a win for human health care and life over the profits of trial lawyers. Pharma money is best spent on researching new medicines and saving laves rather than lining the pockets of shady lawyers. :thumbsup:
So, you are saying that Big Pharma is less CORRUPT than a Trial Lawyer? If you truly think they are then by how much would you say they are.. 5%, 10%?
Such quantitation would be absurd, so I won't even try. I could however, fill a thousand posts of the good things pharma has done for society and human health. Pharmas have had the greatest role in the tremendous improvement of life expectancy and quality of life we've been fortunate to see over the last 100 years.
Vaccines have eradicated terrible scourges like smallpox and polio, and have driven others out of prevalance in modern societies. Antibiotics and other drugs have saved countless numbers from lethal infections and enable us to conduct safe surguries, and often save those who do get an infection. Pharmas screen the blood supply to keep it safe and healthy for blood transfusions, accident victims and surgury patients.
Pharmas keeps HIV+ patients alive and healthy far beyond what the virus would have given them. Pharmas keep HIV+ mothers from infecting their babies. Pharmas save cancer patients, heart attack and stroke victims. Pharmas aid mental health patients to live happy ad healthy productive lives. The gov't is pleading Roche to scale-up and speed up production of Tamiflu to stave off a potential flu pandemic. This alone could save the lives of millions.
All this is just a very short list of the positive things pharma has done for society in general. Personally pharmas have saved the lives of two of my uncles from heart attacks, and thier meds keep their health so they can lead normal lives. They have saved a grandmother and an aunt from cancer; they saved the life of my cousin after he was severly wounded in Iraq and they aid him in with the physical head injury he suffered so he can at least have some semblance of normalcy. They saved the life of my brother after he contracted a staph infection after a surgury that very nearly killed him. They extended the life of another grandmother greatly despite her various illnesses. The list goes on. 50 years ago all these people would have been dead, but today they all lead happy lives thanks to the pharmacuticals and other medical advances they made possible. I doubt there is a single person here who has not have their family positively impacted by the products pharma has created.
What would have the trial lawyers done for them? Sued Beef farmers for making steaks too yummy?:roll: My aunt would have been a very rich but sad widow. I am not saying Pharma is absolutely good, nor are lawyers absolutely bad. They have had a role protecting us when gov't (regulations and otherwise) has failed. However, in the larger scope I see their actions as often very destructive as many many lawsuits are friviolous or result in compensation far beyond the reasonable impact of claimed damages. These things have a very real cost. They make car/health/malpractice/other insurance very expensive, which ultimately trickles down to us as the consumer. Fear of such lawsuits stiffles creativity and innovation. What advances have been ignored as they would pose uncertain risk versus potential benefits and relatively low profits? Why should drugs for rare diseases or small markets get vital resources committed to their research when their meager returns would not cover the cost of potential lawsuits? (and there are always lawsuits, thousands a year get thrown out of court, but they still have to be paid to defended against.)
This case was BS. The plantiff took Vioxx intermittently for less than two months, was taking large amts of other drugs, overdosing on the vioxx, and had conditions predisposed to heart disease. There is no proof whatsoever that links such short-term use to heart attacks, nor any way to substantially prove the drug would have even been the cause of the heart attack and not mearly coincidal. Thank God for an intelligent jury. Lawyers on TV were comisurating the plantiff recieved an unfavorable jury, but surely other cases will be more lucky.... Keep sending them down to Texas I guess.
Even the day of the Vioxx withdrawl I heard ads on the radio: "Have you taken Vioxx? It has been shown to cause heart attacks and death. If you have taken even a single dose you may be entitled to monetary damages. Please call the law offices of Dewey, Cheetum and Howe NOW! A consultaion costs you nothing. We don't get paid unless you do!" :thumbsdown:
As someone who can barely afford health insurance and perscription drugs, YES!
You know Big Pharma is only going to pass all these lawsuit costs down to the consumer (as any company would).
Specifically on this last point, is the man who sued Merck liable for all of their legal costs? They would have spent hundreds of thousands on this man's bogus claims.
- Aug 23, 2003
- 25,375
- 142
- 116
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Of course, Profits over human life.
You are right Dave, this is a win for human health care and life over the profits of trial lawyers. Pharma money is best spent on researching new medicines and saving laves rather than lining the pockets of shady lawyers. :thumbsup:
But...but...I thought it was best spent on television and print ads for penis hardeners?
I wouldn't worry too much, there are thousands of lawsuits pending at the state and federal level for Vioxx. And handful of judgements will be enough to teach Merck a lesson, not to mention the legal costs alone.
Humeston's case wasn't nearly as good as the TX case. Granted, the biggest problem might have been the fact that he's still alive.
The evidence linking short-term Vioxx use to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events is weak. Assuming Merck doesn't blow it, they probably have even odds against plaintiffs that took Vioxx for less than a year or used it intermittently.
Then again the defense often did not argue on the merits . . . admonished by the judge for saying, "the kids of Merck employees are watching."
Fundamentally, Merck has a problem of basic medical science. It's reasonably well established that Vioxx can contribute to heart disease and stroke. That's the reason why you cannot go down to the pharmacist and get a bottle. FDA, MDs, pharmacologists, even Merck are aware that Vioxx has issues . . . particularly if used for chronic conditions over an extended period of time. Hence, it becomes a difficult proposition to argue that Vioxx played no role in a particular person's heart attack or stroke.
Merck won this case by attacking the victim . . . but that's not going to float 6400 more times.
The evidence linking short-term Vioxx use to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events is weak. Assuming Merck doesn't blow it, they probably have even odds against plaintiffs that took Vioxx for less than a year or used it intermittently.
Then again the defense often did not argue on the merits . . . admonished by the judge for saying, "the kids of Merck employees are watching."
Fundamentally, Merck has a problem of basic medical science. It's reasonably well established that Vioxx can contribute to heart disease and stroke. That's the reason why you cannot go down to the pharmacist and get a bottle. FDA, MDs, pharmacologists, even Merck are aware that Vioxx has issues . . . particularly if used for chronic conditions over an extended period of time. Hence, it becomes a difficult proposition to argue that Vioxx played no role in a particular person's heart attack or stroke.
Merck won this case by attacking the victim . . . but that's not going to float 6400 more times.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
on npr the lawyer that argued the first and successful case against vioxx said there are only about 26,000 more suits to go...
merck should do a wal mart and fight every single one. Soon most of the lawyers will drop their lawsuits because its too expensive.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter