This time Merck lost a case in Texas involving a 71 year old man who only took Vioxx for a month. Mr. Garza died five years ago after taking Vioxx for a month. He did have a history of heart problems, but an exam just before he started taking Vioxx showed he had no blood clots and he died one month later from a blood clot.
Merck says that there is no evidence that taking Vioxx for a month can cause a heart attack, stroke or blood clots. However, the lawyers who have studied the research tell me they are overstating their case. There is evidence that even a little Vioxx can cause cardiovascular problems. In fact, there is significant evidence to that effect. Merck’s attorneys just don’t acknowledge it.
It doesn’t matter though. Merck’s problem is the fact that they knew it and decided not to pull Vioxx from the market. The profit potential seemed too big. Merck is being punished for it’s deception.
The proof that they knew it is in the damning internal emails that are now part of every Vioxx case. The emails clearly show that the Merck scientists knew the cardiovascular problems were significant even before the drug was approved by the FDA. Merck even had other earlier studies indicating that Vioxx caused heart attacks and strokes, but it ignored them claiming they were inconclusive. In one case Merck looks like it was trying to deceive the FDA and the medical community by keeping three cardiovascular events out of the results of a study that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Merck looks even worse because it also taught its salesmen to avoid answering physicians’ questions about the cardiovascular problems so Merck could increase Vioxx sales and profits.
Merck attorneys talk about Merck being a great company with lots of brilliant people who develop medicines to help people. While much of this statement is true, it ignores the fact that for at least one period in its history, Merck’s business people put profits ahead of its healthcare mission.
So far, Merck has lost half of the cases that have been tried. Even if it brings that number down to 30%, it will lose the war. The interesting thing from the perspective of the plaintiff lawyers is that they have yet to try one of their really strong cases against Merck. Just wait to see what happens when the plaintiffs are 40 year olds who took Vioxx for more than 18 months…. Merck will get clobbered on those. And, if juries continue to rule against Merck in cases involving 70 year olds with heart problems – like this one and the recent verdict in New Jersey – Merck may be forced into bankruptcy. .
Merck says it will try each case individually and will not enter into a broad settlement. The problem with this strategy is that it shows that Merck continues to be the heartless company that decided to keep Vioxx on the market even though management knew that Vioxx would kill people. I believe that Merck will have to enter into a settlement soon.
If it doesn’t, Merck will drown in a sea of legal fees (paid to its defense lawyers – who are loving this – win lose or draw), litigation costs and multimillion dollar verdicts for the many thousands of victims. That would be a shame. Merck is a good company with the potential to help a lot of people. Merck management needs to find a way to put this dark period of its history behind it. A global settlement is the only feasible way to do this.
