Message To Big Pharms: Lying To The Public For Profit Will Backfire

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
ANGLETON, Texas - A Texas jury found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable for the death of a man who took the once-popular painkiller Vioxx.

Jurors awarded Robert Ernst's widow, Carol, $253.4 million in damages, which is a combination of his lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager, mental anguish, loss of companionship and punitive damages.

The case drew national attention from pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers, stock analysts and arbitragers as a signal of what lies ahead for Merck, which has vowed to fight the more than 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the country. Merck said it plans to appeal.

A seven-man, five-woman jury from a semi-rural county south of Houston deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before blaming the drug for killing Ernst in his sleep in 2001. Jurors rejected Merck's argument that Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia.

In Texas, punitive damages are capped at twice the amount of economic damages ? lost pay ? and up to $750,000 on top of non-economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of companionship. Non-economic damages have no limit in Texas except in medical malpractice cases, which doesn't apply to the Ernst case.

Shares of Merck & Co. fell $1.01, or 3.3 percent, to $29.40 in afternoon trading on the
New York Stock Exchange after the verdict.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a fan of the big Pharms, so I can't say I'm against this verdict. For decades, the industry has focused on profits by designing drugs that cure the symptoms, NOT the ailment. They have kept the cost of prescription drugs in the US high, while our neighbors to the north pay significantly less for the same stuff. They have spent countless billions on TV advertising that could have been better served in R&D.

Best of luck to Merck. There are 4,200 state and federal lawsuits in the books over Vioxx. Bwahahahaha...

IDIOT,

For evey drug that works, 10 fail (not real numbers). There is a reason drugs cost alot. Just look at AIDs treatment today versus 10 years ago!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is like the tobacco industry. The losses from the lawsuit are passed onto the American consumer.

Fixed it for you. As we all know, the first world nations of this world implement price controls to prevent price gouging.

These first world nations also don't have $250 million lawsuits. Can't pay for those with price control.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Nitemare
2 words...Tort Reform

Every member of that jury needs to be beaten and should never be allowed in a court room evAr.

God forbid one figures in the long-term earnings of a wal-mart employee in there...

This is not an accident this test case was in Texas. They are known for laws and juries that readily lead to multi hundred million $ awards.

There was a case 2-3yrs ago where a woman was awarded $1 BILLION, for a Phen-Fen related death. The mordibly-obese person took the drug for a few months (~2,) then dies 5yrs later from a heart condition that was a listed potential side-effect of the drug. The death couldn't even be conclusively linked to the drug, but no matter, give em a billion anyway. Let me go look for a link...

Jury Awards Widow $253.4M in Vioxx Trial

The jury broke down the damage award as $450,000 in economic damages ? Robert Ernst's lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager; $24 million for mental anguish and loss of companionship, and $229 million in punitive damages.

But the punitive damage amount is likely to be reduced as state law caps it at twice the amount of economic damages ? lost pay ? and up to $750,000 on top of non-economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of companionship.

Under that formula, $1.65 million is the maximum amount of punitive damages that Carol Ernst could receive, versus the $229 million that is being sought.

This is what gets people so wiled up about these cases. You hear 229 million, that is insane - than you come to find out that Texas like many states caps punative damages. Why didn't the judge instruct the jury on this and a "normal" amount is awarded?

Anyway, according to libertarians and free-marketers, aren't the court systems supposed to deter/punish shady businesses so that the market will weed out the bad businesses?
Anyway, suxs to be a merck stockholder but these drugs are supposed no more effective as aspirin but cost so much more - so I shed no tears.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
IDIOT,

For evey drug that works, 10 fail (not real numbers). There is a reason drugs cost alot. Just look at AIDs treatment today versus 10 years ago!

Yep, 30% profit margins and 30% marketing of the drug so people *think* they need it.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Best of luck to Merck. There are 4,200 state and federal lawsuits in the books over Vioxx. Bwahahahaha...

or to the people that work at the Drug Companies. They know they are working for scum and proud of it, same goes for Political supporters too.

Scum? How do you figure? Guy dies, $250 million. That means your life is worth $250 Million! By your standards, drugs are WAY UNDERVALUED!

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Hafen
Link to $1B Texas/Wyeth jury award thread


Wyeth in total settled for $21 Billion, and had huge effects on the company and its employees. Merck's liability could far excede this.

The rest of the industry is scared sh!tless, as few death could lead to the destruction of the company

estimates for Vioxx average about $18 billion.

Merck's debt is about $12 Billion. They have about $18 billion in cash. So, they could eliminate debt and still have $6 billion left.

Merck will survive, but they will be taking on massive amounts of debt in the process.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
IDIOT,

For evey drug that works, 10 fail (not real numbers). There is a reason drugs cost alot. Just look at AIDs treatment today versus 10 years ago!

Yep, 30% profit margins and 30% marketing of the drug so people *think* they need it.

Hahhaahhaahahah. Good one.

If you hate drug comapnies so bad and think they are profit hogs, why not buy some stock? merck has a 5% yield. PFE is also attractive.

Profit margins. har har har. You are acting like 30% is out of the ordinary. :thumbsdown:

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Hafen
Link to $1B Texas/Wyeth jury award thread

Both the Wyeth and Merck settlements were in Houston burbs...


Wyeth in total settled for $21 Billion, and had huge effects on the company and its employees. Merck's liability could far excede this.

The rest of the industry is scared sh!tless, as few death could lead to the destruction of the company

Some body call the whaablonence. I kill a few people and I mgiht lose my company oh-knows.

 

[Bitek]

"Seeger, the lawyer in New Jersey [for the next Vioxx case], says he is energized to show the world that trial lawyers who sue big companies have an important role in holding companies like Merck accountable. He says he hopes to use Merck to show people "that we provide a valuable service in society." :roll: by pissing in the well...

Also: "Analysts have pegged Merck's liability in Vioxx cases at anywhere from a few billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars. Richard Evans, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, has argued that it is an either/or situation--if Merck starts losing cases, it could cause awarded damages to balloon. "

20M people have taken Vioxx, and the subtleties of the cases (patient demographics) could mean this ends up being alot more expensive than Wyeth's suits.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Hafen
Link to $1B Texas/Wyeth jury award thread


Wyeth in total settled for $21 Billion, and had huge effects on the company and its employees. Merck's liability could far excede this.

The rest of the industry is scared sh!tless, as few death could lead to the destruction of the company

estimates for Vioxx average about $18 billion.

Merck's debt is about $12 Billion. They have about $18 billion in cash. So, they could eliminate debt and still have $6 billion left.

Merck will survive, but they will be taking on massive amounts of debt in the process.

Total cash outputs will far excede this. Vioxx was #2 product so huge revenue stream is lost, and they are terribly hard to discover. Lawyers fees will also eat up billions. Again, the biggest loss will be the effect of cutting research and small drugs which in the end could end up causing more deaths than was attributed to Vioxx. But they are deaths by omission, so I guess its justified. They can't sue...

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

This is what gets people so wiled up about these cases. You hear 229 million, that is insane - than you come to find out that Texas like many states caps punative damages. Why didn't the judge instruct the jury on this and a "normal" amount is awarded?

That's a very good question and I'd love to know as well.

 

[jpeyton]

I won't argue that trial lawyers can be scum as well. So in this case, we have scum fighting scum.

Don't you guys know that developing cures is a fiscally irresponsible practice? Develop a cure and you've healed a person for life, but develop a proper drug and you've got a customer for life.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Hafen
Link to $1B Texas/Wyeth jury award thread

Both the Wyeth and Merck settlements were in Houston burbs...


Wyeth in total settled for $21 Billion, and had huge effects on the company and its employees. Merck's liability could far excede this.

The rest of the industry is scared sh!tless, as few death could lead to the destruction of the company

Some body call the whaablonence. I kill a few people and I mgiht lose my company oh-knows.

Sounds like the opinion of someone who has no idea how drugs or the industry works.

Remember back to those Evolution threads? Think about variation and diversity...

First of all, all drugs are poisons. The diffence between health and danger is dose. If you have a drug that is safe for 99.99% of the population, but bc of unpredictable variations in human biology, some patients may react poorly even fatally to drugs that are safe for everyone else. Bc of these extremely low susceptability rates, lethal side effects can be hard to discover even in huge controlled clinical trials befoe a drug is released.

That is why drugs must be constantly monitored and studied after to release to see what additional effects will be born out in the larger population. If discovered, the drug is retargeted or potentially pulled. Merck voluntarily pulled this one.

So are you saying its just to then destroy a company because its product was benefitial to all but a few people who took it? Even if they couldn't know? Is this a smart way for a society to run its medical system?

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
IDIOT,

For evey drug that works, 10 fail (not real numbers). There is a reason drugs cost alot. Just look at AIDs treatment today versus 10 years ago!

Yep, 30% profit margins and 30% marketing of the drug so people *think* they need it.

Hahhaahhaahahah. Good one.

If you hate drug comapnies so bad and think they are profit hogs, why not buy some stock? merck has a 5% yield. PFE is also attractive.

Profit margins. har har har. You are acting like 30% is out of the ordinary. :thumbsdown:

I agree...owning the stock is a good way to make the money back. Unfortunately not all people who are sick can afford to pay for the drugs and buy shares.

30% profit margins are out of the ordinary. The only sectors that come close to that are financial institutions and monopolies (anti-capitalistic).

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I won't argue that trial lawyers can be scum as well. So in this case, we have scum fighting scum.

Don't you guys know that developing cures is a fiscally irresponsible practice? Develop a cure and you've healed a person for life, but develop a proper drug and you've got a customer for life.

The real rub is that drug companies are hated bc they hold so much power over life and death. Yet they are pulled so many competing ways:

People w/ family dying of a untreatable disease demand drugs be released before years long trials can be completed to prove they are safe. Certain death is worse than only a chance of it...

People want 100% safe drugs and take them without side-effects. Clinical trials should take years and years to prove they are safe. One death is too many.

People want cheap drugs, saving their life shouldn't cost anything. But when faced with paying for them, they are willing to buy drugs from Mexico where god knows what sh!t they are buying and how it was made and tested...

Every disease should already have a 100% cure. Its a conspiracy if not, science be damned.

For all the criticism, if you found out your wife had cancer tomorrow, would you at all hesitate to get whatever treatment you could to save her life? Or are the companies still scum? Perhaps you'll show your dissatisfaction with a boycott?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I won't argue that trial lawyers can be scum as well. So in this case, we have scum fighting scum.

Don't you guys know that developing cures is a fiscally irresponsible practice? Develop a cure and you've healed a person for life, but develop a proper drug and you've got a customer for life.

Then don't take the drug. Who's forcing you?

 

[Tab]

Have you guys done any reading before posting anything about this case? The company didn't do proper testing reguarding the drug, their at fault. Because of their incompatence they got sued, is their something wrong with this? Do you guys beileve that Merrick is being sued by 4,200 people for no reason?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Tab
Have you guys done any reading before posting anything about this case? The company didn't do proper testing reguarding the drug, their at fault. Because of their incompatence they got sued, is their something wrong with this?

Yes they are a corportation is neo-cons are all about personal responisbilty it is that persons fault for believing the vioxx ads.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I won't argue that trial lawyers can be scum as well. So in this case, we have scum fighting scum.

Don't you guys know that developing cures is a fiscally irresponsible practice? Develop a cure and you've healed a person for life, but develop a proper drug and you've got a customer for life.

The real rub is that drug companies are hated bc they hold so much power over life and death. Yet they are pulled so many competing ways:

People w/ family dying of a untreatable disease demand drugs be released before years long trials can be completed to prove they are safe. Certain death is worse than only a chance of it...

People want 100% safe drugs and take them without side-effects. Clinical trials should take years and years to prove they are safe. One death is too many.

People want cheap drugs, saving their life shouldn't cost anything. But when faced with paying for them, they are willing to buy drugs from Mexico where god knows what sh!t they are buying and how it was made and tested...

Every disease should already have a 100% cure. Its a conspiracy if not, science be damned.

For all the criticism, if you found out your wife had cancer tomorrow, would you at all hesitate to get whatever treatment you could to save her life? Or are the companies still scum? Perhaps you'll show your dissatisfaction with a boycott?

that is very astute! 🙂 I agree that consumers must bear responsibility for their choices but drug companies should also take responsibility. We are also comparing so-called life-style drugs to life-saving drugs. I don't think I've seen many lawsuits when a experimental cancer drug fails.

 

[Pantoot]

Originally posted by: Tab
Have you guys done any reading before posting anything about this case? The company didn't do proper testing reguarding the drug, their at fault. Because of their incompatence they got sued, is their something wrong with this? Do you guys beileve that Merrick is being sued by 4,200 people for no reason?

True, but they aren't really being sued by most of the 4,200 people because they did something wrong. A good number of these people are suing just because they think they can get some cash.

When I grow up I want to be a plaintiff.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Tab
Have you guys done any reading before posting anything about this case? The company didn't do proper testing reguarding the drug, their at fault. Because of their incompatence they got sued, is their something wrong with this? Do you guys beileve that Merrick is being sued by 4,200 people for no reason?

I can assure you I and those in my industry have been following this case closely.

Its not as simple as "not doing proper testing," as if a couple of tests would have prevented the whole thing. If proper clinicals were not performed the FDA would have never approved the drug for release.

Pharma is by far the most heavily regulated industry on the planet, and the FDA is the toughest of all of them. I could not even begin to tell you about some of the arcane rules imposed by the FDA. You can't even open a door w/o an SOP and three people to prove that you did it exactly that way.

Yet for all of it, somethings still fall though.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: jpeyton
I won't argue that trial lawyers can be scum as well. So in this case, we have scum fighting scum.

Don't you guys know that developing cures is a fiscally irresponsible practice? Develop a cure and you've healed a person for life, but develop a proper drug and you've got a customer for life.

The real rub is that drug companies are hated bc they hold so much power over life and death. Yet they are pulled so many competing ways:

People w/ family dying of a untreatable disease demand drugs be released before years long trials can be completed to prove they are safe. Certain death is worse than only a chance of it...

People want 100% safe drugs and take them without side-effects. Clinical trials should take years and years to prove they are safe. One death is too many.

People want cheap drugs, saving their life shouldn't cost anything. But when faced with paying for them, they are willing to buy drugs from Mexico where god knows what sh!t they are buying and how it was made and tested...

Every disease should already have a 100% cure. Its a conspiracy if not, science be damned.

For all the criticism, if you found out your wife had cancer tomorrow, would you at all hesitate to get whatever treatment you could to save her life? Or are the companies still scum? Perhaps you'll show your dissatisfaction with a boycott?

that is very astute! 🙂 I agree that consumers must bear responsibility for their choices but drug companies should also take responsibility. We are also comparing so-called life-style drugs to life-saving drugs. I don't think I've seen many lawsuits when a experimental cancer drug fails.

I am not trying to absolve companies when they have done something harmful or neglectful, but the punishment has to be proportional. I would worry just as much if there was no system for checks and retribution.

You haven't heard these things, but lawsuits are a constant, and many are BS. What is not so readily seen is the passive or not so public effect big suits like this have. One example; Risky drugs for not so profitable diseases are not researched, as potential lawsuits (any drug could be the nect Phen-Fen/Vioxx) outweigh potential profits. So people die without a hope for a cure. Regulations are stiffened, and not always sensibly, by FDA to CThierAsses, so drugs become more expensive for everyone. It becomes easier and safer then to create a huge blockbuster and market the hell out of it, than to painstakingly research and test lots of little drugs.
The net effect is for the society ends up being bad.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Pantoot

Originally posted by: Tab
Have you guys done any reading before posting anything about this case? The company didn't do proper testing reguarding the drug, their at fault. Because of their incompatence they got sued, is their something wrong with this? Do you guys beileve that Merrick is being sued by 4,200 people for no reason?

True, but they aren't really being sued by most of the 4,200 people because they did something wrong. A good number of these people are suing just because they think they can get some cash.

When I grow up I want to be a plaintiff.

Yeah, there were cases in the Wyeth/Phen-Fen debacle where scummy lawyers would get potential clients to go to scummy doctor friends to be prescribed a single-dose. Then since Wyeth was forced by the FDA to settle lawsuits rather than contest them, they would apply for damages and be awarded $$$ uncontested. Not the $Billion cases, but lots of $50K cases add up.

This is why you see Merck vowing to fight all the cases and not to settle. Wyeth mishandled their defence strat, got stuck, then got raped like a Nebraskan sheep 🙂D )

Eh, rackin up posts tonite.. Think I'll go watch Kung Fu Hustle and try not to think about it...

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Tab
Have you guys done any reading before posting anything about this case? The company didn't do proper testing reguarding the drug, their at fault. Because of their incompatence they got sued, is their something wrong with this? Do you guys beileve that Merrick is being sued by 4,200 people for no reason?

Merck followed every single FDA guideline in the submission and approval of Vioxx. It wasn't until long term studies were conducted (which aren't part of government requirements) that the "problem" was discovered. When the government is telling you if a drug is safe or not to sell then the company shouldn't be responsible for the unrecognized side effects of any drug released if they followed the governments process and didn't conceal any information.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Don't you guys know that developing cures is a fiscally irresponsible practice? Develop a cure and you've healed a person for life, but develop a proper drug and you've got a customer for life.

Quoted for Truth