|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Friday, November 04, 2005The Atlantic City case revolved around Humeston's reaction to Vioxx after he took it for about two months to alleviate pain in his left knee, which was injured by shrapnel during his service as a Marine in Vietnam. The drug helped with the pain. But hours after taking two pills on Sept. 18, 2001, he suffered a mild heart attack. Humeston's lawyers blamed the drug, saying that he had no history of heart disease. They sought to show that Merck rushed Vioxx to the market, manipulating data given to the Food and Drug Administration and training salespeople to dodge questions about the drug. But Merck's legal team - which noted the federal FDA had rule the drug safe - said Humeston's attack was prompted by other factors. They said he had elevated blood pressure and high stress, especially after he got into a dispute with his employer, the U.S. Postal Service. Juror Vickie Heintz, 40, of Mays Landing agreed with that assessment. 'I thought he had way too many other health issues,' Heintz said. 'His medical records were riddled with many medicines.' As does most of the population who took Vioxx for pain. Merck is smart to fight each case in court. To claim that Vioxx, which increased the risk of heart attacks by one or two percentage points, caused the heart attacks of people already at risk for heart disease is ludicrous. The trial lawyers deserve to be called out on this one. posted by Sydney on 11/04/2005 08:52:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
