I have mentioned that I belong to a group VPEG that has discussions regarding the Settlement Offer. This is a “comment” given on the group site which was taken from WSJ health blog comment, that I wanted to share with you.
This drug was slated to cause heart attacks and strokes in 1999 when it was approved. I know, I was in on the discussions at a hospital committee when the drug was being submitted for approval.
We thought it would kill people and restricted its use. No lawyers have asked anyone on our committee to testify. There are ~5000 such committees in hospitals across the US, and countless others in HMO’s, Clinic’s and insurance companies. Instead, the Plaintiff’s lawyers send some hired gun Doctors who would testify that breast milk is toxic if they were paid enough. Merck counters with the same, and the facts get lost in the mess. As was said on the X-files, “the truth is out there”. If the lawyers wanted to win, and not merely settle on the cheap, they would have brought in witnesses and facts that that are well known in the pharmaceutical research circles. Many had marked this drug as a disaster right out of the gate. If the lawyers had done so, this settlement may not be the sham that it is.
Comment by Sidney Seal MD – February 2, 2008 at 11:04 am
After reading this comment, I immediately thought to myself, if there is this one doctor who felt that VIOXX was dangerous in 1999 there has to be more across the United States and that he has a very valid point. Why are the plaintiffs’ attorneys not hiring some of these doctors or having our own doctors testifying as to why they prescribed the drug to us or why not prescribe the drug? Again, I believe that my doctor would have never prescribed VIOXX to me if he had been aware of all the risks involved.
Tags: attorneys, doctor, hospitals, lawsuits, Merck, plaintiffs, settlement, vioxx
