Lawyer: Merck tried to hide Vioxx risk

[Guest guest]

Lawyer: Merck tried to hide Vioxx risk

Attorney, who won first case against Merck last year in Texas, says drug

maker suppressed risks in efforts to make Vioxx a blockbuster drug.

March 6, 2006: 2:04 PM EST

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (Reuters) - Merck knew its painkiller Vioxx significantly

increased the risk of heart attack but worked to hide the evidence from

doctors, patients and the scientific community to boost profits, a lawyer for a

former Vioxx user argued on Monday.

In opening arguments in the latest trial over the withdrawn drug, Mark

Lanier, an attorney for a man who blames Vioxx for his 2003 heart attack, said

the

company was driven by marketing rather than science and was determined to

make Vioxx into a blockbuster drug with sales of at least $1 billion a year.

(http://money.cnn.com/markets/hotstocks/)

Lanier, who won the first case against the company last year in Texas, said

in his remarks that five Merck executives, including former chief executive

Gilmartin, hid the truth about Vioxx.

Merck was losing patents for six blockbuster drugs and needed to replace them

with another that would boost its profits, Lanier told the jury of eight

women and two men in his opening statement, which lasted about an hour and 15

minutes.

The lawyer repeatedly used a graphic of a man standing near the edge of a

cliff, and claimed that Vioxx pushed users over the edge when combined with

other cardiovascular risk factors such as age, weight and cholesterol.

" When you take Vioxx and you are walking close to the edge of the cliff, you

are a walking time bomb, " Lanier said.

This trial combines two cases and, for the first time, involves long-term

Vioxx users. The plaintiffs are Lanier client Cona, a 59-year-old New

Jersey businessman who says he took Vioxx for 22 months before his June 2003

heart attack, and McDarby, 77, who blames four years of Vioxx use for his

heart attack in April 2004.

Merck has said it pulled the $2.5 billion a year drug from the market in

September 2004 after a study showed that using it continuously for at least 18

months doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Merck argued in earlier trials that there was no evidence that short-term

Vioxx use increased heath risks.

The trial marks the fifth lawsuit against Vioxx that has come to court. Merck

lost the first trial, in which a Texas jury awarded $253 million to the

widow of a Wal-Mart manager who died from a heart attack after taking the drug.

It marks the second trial in Merck's home state of New Jersey, where about

half of the nearly 10,000 Vioxx-related lawsuits have been filed.

In the first New Jersey case, also before Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee,

a jury denied a claim by Idaho postal worker Frederick Humeston that Vioxx

had caused his 2001 heart attack. Jurors interviewed after the case said they

believed pre-existing health problems may have caused the attack.

Humeston took Vioxx intermittently for two months.

The plaintiffs in the current trial claim Merck knew of the drug's dangers

years before its withdrawal.

Court documents being used by plaintiffs in these cases cite a study

presented to the European League Against Rheumatism in 2000 showing that Vioxx

use

resulted in a significant increase in high blood pressure and stroke.

The documents charge that " Merck continued to deny the ill-health effects of

Vioxx while at the same time reaping profits obtained through its

non-disclosure and concealment. "

Merck is expected to argue that Vioxx did not cause the heart attacks of the

two long-term users.

" Plaintiffs will have a difficult time proving it was Vioxx and not their

previous medical conditions that caused their heart attacks, " Chuck Harrell, an

attorney for Merck, said in a written statement.

[Guest guest]

To Me Vioxx help I fealt no pain or side affects like I do with other pain meds

what a shame i have them but because of this I want take it. it did work for me

better than any other pain meds and as for as I know it didn't hurt me it

helped.

Elvira

[] Lawyer: Merck tried to hide Vioxx risk

Lawyer: Merck tried to hide Vioxx risk

Attorney, who won first case against Merck last year in Texas, says drug

maker suppressed risks in efforts to make Vioxx a blockbuster drug.

March 6, 2006: 2:04 PM EST

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (Reuters) - Merck knew its painkiller Vioxx significantly

increased the risk of heart attack but worked to hide the evidence from

doctors, patients and the scientific community to boost profits, a lawyer for

a

former Vioxx user argued on Monday.

In opening arguments in the latest trial over the withdrawn drug, Mark

Lanier, an attorney for a man who blames Vioxx for his 2003 heart attack, said

the

company was driven by marketing rather than science and was determined to

make Vioxx into a blockbuster drug with sales of at least $1 billion a year.

(http://money.cnn.com/markets/hotstocks/)

Lanier, who won the first case against the company last year in Texas, said

in his remarks that five Merck executives, including former chief executive

Gilmartin, hid the truth about Vioxx.

Merck was losing patents for six blockbuster drugs and needed to replace them

with another that would boost its profits, Lanier told the jury of eight

women and two men in his opening statement, which lasted about an hour and 15

minutes.

The lawyer repeatedly used a graphic of a man standing near the edge of a

cliff, and claimed that Vioxx pushed users over the edge when combined with

other cardiovascular risk factors such as age, weight and cholesterol.

" When you take Vioxx and you are walking close to the edge of the cliff, you

are a walking time bomb, " Lanier said.

This trial combines two cases and, for the first time, involves long-term

Vioxx users. The plaintiffs are Lanier client Cona, a 59-year-old New

Jersey businessman who says he took Vioxx for 22 months before his June 2003

heart attack, and McDarby, 77, who blames four years of Vioxx use for his

heart attack in April 2004.

Merck has said it pulled the $2.5 billion a year drug from the market in

September 2004 after a study showed that using it continuously for at least 18

months doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Merck argued in earlier trials that there was no evidence that short-term

Vioxx use increased heath risks.

The trial marks the fifth lawsuit against Vioxx that has come to court. Merck

lost the first trial, in which a Texas jury awarded $253 million to the

widow of a Wal-Mart manager who died from a heart attack after taking the

drug.

It marks the second trial in Merck's home state of New Jersey, where about

half of the nearly 10,000 Vioxx-related lawsuits have been filed.

In the first New Jersey case, also before Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee,

a jury denied a claim by Idaho postal worker Frederick Humeston that Vioxx

had caused his 2001 heart attack. Jurors interviewed after the case said they

believed pre-existing health problems may have caused the attack.

Humeston took Vioxx intermittently for two months.

The plaintiffs in the current trial claim Merck knew of the drug's dangers

years before its withdrawal.

Court documents being used by plaintiffs in these cases cite a study

presented to the European League Against Rheumatism in 2000 showing that Vioxx

use

resulted in a significant increase in high blood pressure and stroke.

The documents charge that " Merck continued to deny the ill-health effects of

Vioxx while at the same time reaping profits obtained through its

non-disclosure and concealment. "

Merck is expected to argue that Vioxx did not cause the heart attacks of the

two long-term users.

" Plaintiffs will have a difficult time proving it was Vioxx and not their

previous medical conditions that caused their heart attacks, " Chuck Harrell,

an

attorney for Merck, said in a written statement.