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.

Here are some excerpts from the story:

Merck & Co. is the subject of a federal grand-jury probe into its sales and marketing practices for Vioxx, the painkiller it pulled from the market in 2004, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“The potential of an indictment can clearly be an incentive for [Merck] to settle civil cases,” says Joseph L. Doherty, of Doherty & Quill, a Boston law firm. Mr. Doherty has one Vioxx client, whom he says he hadn’t intended to enroll in the settlement. “The mere potential of an indictment probably won’t change too many people’s minds about whether to enter the proposed settlement.”

In February 2007, the Whitehouse Station, N.J., company disclosed in its regulatory filings that the U.S. Department of Justice issued a subpoena requesting information relating to the company’s research, marketing and sales activities with respect to Vioxx, as part of a federal investigation under criminal statutes.

Merck also disclosed in that filing that 31 state attorneys general and the District of Columbia are conducting an investigation of its sales and marketing of Vioxx.

Read the full story here

No wonder Merck wants the plaintiffs to sign the Settlement Agreement Now!

In my opinion, this is only the start of examinations into the criminal activities of Merck & Co..

For more information please go to VPEG

Excerpts from a “NY TIMES”story, published April 12, 2006

The jurors did find that Merck had committed consumer fraud against Mr. Cona by not publicizing Vioxx’s potential risks. But because Mr. Cona said he had taken Vioxx for 22 months and yet had only three prescriptions covering seven months, the jurors were not sure that he had taken the drug as long as he said, according to Mr. Kile.

The verdict was the first time a New Jersey jury has awarded punitive damages against a drug company and automatically causes the case to be referred to the state attorney general for a possible criminal investigation of Merck’s conduct. Federal prosecutors have been investigating the company’s marketing of Vioxx.

The verdict is another big victory for Mr. Lanier, who was the winning lawyer in the Texas case. He handled the bulk of the arguments in this trial, including questioning of Raymond V. Gilmartin, Merck’s former chief executive, last Thursday.

In New Jersey a drug company can only be found guilty of consumer fraud if evidence shows that it lied to the FDA.

I’m going to research the federal prosecutors investigation and will be posting about it later.

I am so disgusted at our judicial system right now because it allows a Judge, who is presiding over cases filed in Federal court, to be “Chief Administrator” over the Settlement Agreement between Plaintiffs’ Counsels and Merck. They  are all breaking their arms to pat themselves on the back in light of their “Amending” the settlement agreement between themselves in order to avoid “malpractice suits” which may or may not occur when these plaintiffs’ attorneys “withdraw” from your case due to the agreement that they signed with Merck. Here is an excerpt from that post:

So, what has changed? Apparently the only thing that has changed is that now the lawyers have a direct read from Judge Fallon (who was also named to fill the role of Chief Administrator of the Settlement, and stated: “I believe this program will work and that it will be in the best interests of all concerned,” Fallon declared after receiving reports from attorneys.”) that the language added above will suffice to eliminate ethical concerns, as long as the lawyers can point to and say that they followed the settlement language’s direction to “exercise his or her independent judgement in the best interest of each client individually before determining whether to recommend enrollment in the Program”, which is deemed to have been satisfied when the attorney submits an Enrollment Form.

In my mind, this delusional reality serves only the interest of the lawyers,Merck and Judge Fallon. I believe ALL Plaintiffs should be outraged that the legal system can be so grossly contorted to satisfy the desires of the legal professionals entrusted with its operation,

This post also states:

2) I have an additional concern regarding what exactly is the role of JudgeFallon in his function as “Chief Administrator” of the Settlement Agreement.

Is he on the books and being paid as a government judge during this function, or is he participating and being compensated as a private citizen fulfilling that role? I understand that the Settlement Agreement is private; how does that affect Fallon’s role as Chief Administrator?

I am of the opinion that the defendant is optimistic, the plaintiffs’ attorneys are counting their fees, the Judge is adding up all the payments that he will receive. Since there is a “Steering Committee, Gate Committee, Chief Administrator, Claims Administrator, etc., just who is paying these “committees”? Merck? Could that be? Hmmmmm, I smell greed, greed and more greed.

I realize that this is from 2006, but if JAMA can find additional side effects 2 years after VIOXX was taken off the market, again, what will they find in 5, 10, 15 years?

Could Merck be pushing this “Release” because they are afraid that in another 5 years, the researchers/scientists are going to find out that VIOXX had effects until 20 years after you stop taking it?

I recently heard (AEI Conference, held in January, 2008) that there are currently 6-8 states that have a 6-year statute of limitations to file their claims against Merck. They (Merck) are hoping to get rid of all the plaintiffs who were bound by a 3-year statute of limitations, so that they can be ready for any and all other claims from these other states, as well as from the other countries they are facing (Canada, England, Australia, etc.). If we, the current plaintiffs, sign and agree to this Release, they will use us as an example to these other countries that the claims were from people just trying to make a buck and that they didn‘t do anything wrong.

If they didn‘t do anything wrong then why are they so bound and determined to get rid of the current plaintiffs as quickly as possible. As I have stated in my other posts, the reasons are pretty clear. THEY DID DO SOMETHING WRONG, but won‘t/don‘t want to admit their liability for our current/future medical problems.

For more information go to VPEG

Of the 57,000 + plaintiffs, about (estimated) 30,000 people should have had MI(s) and the costs being around $200,000 each. 30,000 at $200,000 is $6 billion.

The first thing to consider, pursuant to the agreement, $850,000 is for people who suffered strokes, that automatically leaves $4 billion. This is just off the top of my head estimation, but looks to me that Merck would save over $2 billion just on hospitalizations.

The above numbers don’t include any additional medical expenses such as doctors, medications, other health care providers, etc. How many additional billions would Merck be liable for?

It has been estimated that the entire liability to Merck should be around $25-$30 billion.

With this $4 billion offer of settlement, Merck puts any additional burden on the plaintiffs, State and Federal Governments, private insurance companies, as well as the public.

For more information, visit VPEG and join the discussion.

A total of 57,167 claimants have registered for the settlement program, which Fallon said represents about 95 percent of potential claimants. Merck has said it will withdraw from the agreement unless at least 85 percent of people in different groups of claimants sign on.

A total of 3,065 claimants already have moved on to the next phase and enrolled in the program, said Merck spokesman Kent Jarrell.

“We expect that we will meet and exceed the thresholds required for funding the settlement,” Jarrell said following Friday’s hearing. “We just don’t know when it will occur.”

See, money.cnn.com

for the whole article.

This is a prime example of Merck’s spin on things. First, the individual plaintiffs didn’t register for the settlement, their lawyers did it for them. Many did it without consulting their clients.

Doing the math, now this is approximate, less than 6% of the plaintiffs have signed (“opt-in”) the Release of All Claims. Merck has a long way to go and a little more than one month left to get the other 79% of plaintiffs to sign. Therefore, if you are currently a plaintiff looking to investigate your options, don’t get disheartened just because Merck is touting “success”. As they say, “the game aint over until the fat lady sings”.
And I am not singing!

To find out more about this and other points go to VPEG

.

1. Do I have any recourse if I do not agree to the settlement amount after signing this release?
2. Do you have an estimate of what the settlement amount should be?
3. What is the reason for your “recommendation” to accept and sign this Release?
4. Is this Release legal? In other words, can they just refuse to provide me with any settlement and then claim that I cannot go after them because I signed this release?
5. What right does Merck have to “pay all third parties” or demand that all third parties are paid prior to my receipt of any settlement funds?
6. What third parties does this refer to in the Release?
7. Will the third parties be notified of my settlement and/or their back-pay of any claims that they took care of even if they never filed a lien?
8. Have you (Lanier) received any liens regarding my case?
9. If there is a settlement offered to me, how would it be paid? Structured settlement payments or lump sum?
10. What if I don’t sign the Release?
11. Will you/your firm still represent me?
12. Have you (yourself) even evaluated my case or had an “expert” doctor look at my case to see if I “qualify” or am “eligible” for this “global settlement”?
13. How do I know that your information is not confused or not represented incorrectly?

I think these are all questions that every plaintiff in this case should be asking.

For more information please go to VPEG

Mark Lanier said:

“Please be more precise in your practice of medicine than you are in your blogging! First off, I (Mark Lanier) was not the “defense attorney.” I was the “Plaintiffs’ attorney.” Second, my “favorite piece of evidence” you cite (the Gilmartin questioning) was not played at trial. Third, there was a huge amount of info Merck had that it never gave the FDA, there were smoking gun memos and emails, and there was huge harassment of the medical community done by Merck. For example, Merck did a full meta-analysis of placebo trial that showed a statistically significant increase in heart attacks, but Merck excised that from the report given the FDA. Even Merck’s head admitted they should have given the analysis to the FDA.”

Here it is less than one month later, in fact the letter that I received was dated January 9, 2008 “recommending” that I enroll in the settlement program put together by Merck and a “Plaintiffs Steering Committee”. (As you will note, PSC’s middle name…Steer-ing…sounds like bull to me)

As any person who has worked in the legal field (as I have) knows, you do not sign a “Release of Liability” without some type of monetary discussion and agreement of the terms. Merck and my attorney wants me (as well as many others) to sign a Release prior to agreeing on a monetary amount. In fact, they want this “Release” signed with “No Guarantee” of even being found “eligible” for a settlement.

This raises some questions in my mind, those questions are:
(1) What is the “Gilmartin questioning” and where can I get a copy of such “evidence”?
(2) Since you (Mr. Lanier) are aware of such evidence why are you now wanting to “recommend” to all of your Vioxx clients to take this settlement?
(3) Along with your “recommendation”, is the threat that if I don’t take the settlement you will no longer represent me, supposed to frighten me?

I am not the only plaintiff feeling this way and if you are of the same mind, or even if you don’t feel the same, I invite you to join a group of plaintiffs currently refusing to sign this “Release Of All Claims” that we all recently received. Just go to the Vioxx Plaintiffs Educational Group (VPEG)to learn more.

If you are an attorney looking to represent us “hold outs” when (and if) our current attorneys “withdraw” or “disengage” us go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mercksettlementlaw (VPAG)

“I am a physician & served as a witness at the request of plaintiffs in this litigation. I have seen or had access to most of the Merck documents. Most of the most important documents that demonstrate fraud and marketing practices have not been made public.

I believe individual plaintiffs have the right to see these documents & insist that they be made public. This would benefit public health.

David Egilman, MD, MPH

Clinical Associate Professor

Department of Community Health

Brown University

8 North Main Street

Suite 404

Attleboro, MA 02703″

Just what are the documents that the doctor speaks of and why haven’t the plaintiffs’ attorneys brought them foreword?

I think we would all like to know why.

There is a repository of documents in this case, that is located in New Orleans, that only lawyers are allowed to look at. Let’s make them public so we can all know just how dangerous Merck is.

For more information go to VPEG