Important questions unanswered as Vioxx trial starts
As the lawsuit by Carol Ernst goes to trial this morning in Texas despite Merck’s desperate attempts to delay it, several key questions still intrigue Vioxx victims. While the trial will definitely shed more light on on many of these issues, and thus, help other plaintiffs whose attorneys will know better what to do and not to do, some of the fundamental issues remain unresolved.
How many people have died after taking Vioxx? In one estimate by the FDA, 140,000 personal injuries are attributed to Vioxx in the United States alone. No estimates are available for other countries. However, no one really knows how many have actually died. While 50,000 deaths were initially estimated, now the world-renowned scientist at the FDA, Dr. David Graham, says that the number is even higher. “By my estimates, FDA’s allegiance to the pharmaceutical industry and its blindness to safety caused the deaths of up to 60,000 Americans from heart attacks with Vioxx,” said Graham last week. It is important to understand that Merck does not think that even one person has died due to Vioxx, and therefore, has vowed to fight each lawsuit individually to show that Vioxx victims died from something else.
What is Merck’s Vioxx liability? This question is of interest both to plaintiffs and Merck shareholders. While Merck’s stock price has taken a big hit since the recall of Vioxx, the bottom has not fallen out yet. That means that many Merck shareholders actually believe Merck’s story and are hoping that not only will the company survive, but may also not have to pay much in Vioxx liabilities. Some of the initial estimates put the liability as high as $51 billion and then there was a consensus on $38 billion. Merrill Lynch analyst David Risinger estimated last year that Vioxx liability may be as low as $4 to 18 billions. According to a news report by CNN, J.P. Morgan analyst Chris Shibutani is estimating that the liability is going to be approximately $25 billion.
Is Vioxx a dangerous drug? If you believe top scientists like Eric Topol and David Graham, then Vioxx is such a dangerous drug that it should have never been approved. Merck disagrees, and so do many other scientists. Canadian doctors recently recommended that Vioxx is safe enough to be allowed back on the market. American doctors (their recommendations were later ignored due to conflicts of interest) had also made a similar recommendation to the FDA. The question that intrigues most people is that if Vioxx led to so many deaths and injuries, why are doctors so enchanted by Vioxx. A theory that is emerging points to the alignment of the interests of doctors and drug firms. Almost all doctors owe something to drug firms and doctors also benefit when more prescription drugs are on the market. When an arthritis patient can get pain relief from Mobic, Aleve, or acupuncture, then how are doctors going to make money by prescribing Vioxx, Celebrex, Bextra, and Arcoxia?
Recommended articles
Texas Attorney General sues Merck in the Vioxx case
Ibuprofen has as serious side effects as Vioxx, according to Canadian experts
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.