Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Merck Wins Another Case
A federal jury in Louisiana has cleared Merck & Co. of responsibility in the death of a 53-year-old Florida man. Richard Irvin died of a heart attack in 2001, after taking Vioxx for less than a month. This was a retrial of the Irvin case, after a jury in Houston deadlocked on the decision in December. It's the second time Merck has been cleared in a suit over the drug, which the company withdrew from the market in 2004, and its first victory in a federal court. A Texas court found Merck liable in a Vioxx-related suit last August, while a New Jersey court cleared the company in November.
David Henderson and Charles Hooper made Merck's case last year. I ranted against the Merck jurors.
|2.18.06 @ 5:02PM|#
Keep the victories coming! I bought a ton of Merck when the stock fell to $31 - the market always over-reacts...
|2.18.06 @ 8:57PM|#
There is a particular political party that likes to cry that the
other party always lets politics trump science. Yet here is another
issue where the first party is doing just that, by protecting the
worlds most wasteful legal system!
Our jury system simply needs to be reformed. It is patently obvious
that the average Joe on the street cannot rightfully decide highly
technical cases and cases that involve huge award values - and that
is assuming we even get the average Joe. In reality, lawyers from
one side or the other know they are full of it and deliberately
weed out any juror with a brain.
Numerous studies have shown that people cannot accurately access
low-probability risks. For example, many people are terrified of
sharks, yet no one is afraid of bathtubs, which kill hundreds of
times as many people. Trying to have laymen take stabs at this by
"gut-instinct" is a recipe for disaster. Likewise, "gut-instinct"
may work well for rewards of $10,000 or $20,000, which are numbers
we are all familiar with and can feel, but gut-instinct is
worthless when trying to decide between $100,000,000 and
$200,000,000, which are numbers beyond the "feeling" of all but a
few hundred people. In the latter case, some sort of systematic,
abstract reasoning must be used, not "stick a bunch of zeroes on
some random number", which is essentially the process we use
now.
Science has show than the laymen is incapable of making rational
judgements in such cases. This has been confirmed by numerous field
studies. It is time we accepted this fact and have such cases
decided by professionals trained in law, science, and
economics.
|2.19.06 @ 9:42AM|#
Sometimes the site lets me post comments, and sometimes it doesn't. Am I in or out?
V "Bill Lumbergh" Moose|2.19.06 @ 10:24AM|#
hi Milton, what's happening.....
we're gonna have to ask you to go ahead and repost. You see, the
server is playing catch-up...
amazingdrx|2.19.06 @ 11:44AM|#
Keep defending the rights of those corporate citizens! If real
citizens want any of their rights back...incorporate!!
The right of corporate citizens to profit from death and injury is
absolutely inviolable! (under the new revised version of the US
Constitution.)
Neo-libertarianism rules!
|2.19.06 @ 2:16PM|#
amazingdrx! are you really suggesting that, in this case and the other acquitals, a dozen people selected to sit on a jury all shared a pro-corporate bias that outweighed clear and convincing evidence that Merck acted with actual malfeasance? That doesn't even pass the snicker test, let alone the hearty belly laugh test.
|2.19.06 @ 4:13PM|#
Chad,
Ok, but who is going to determine these cases? The equally science
ignorant judges? Hasn't the wisdom of crowds shown that the
aggregate of laymen is relatively accurate. You have only
complained about the current system without offering alternatives.
That's not a good recipe for change.
The problem isn't the jury system, but the jury selection process.
Limit eliminations for reasons of strong bias (membership to racist
organizations, etc.) rather than having lawyers be able to have
freebies that they will use to eliminate jurors that would question
the validity of evidence or have significant knowledge in the field
and the system will improve.
|2.19.06 @ 5:20PM|#
Keep the victories coming! I bought a ton of Merck when the
stock fell 31 - the market always over-reacts...
...except for when it doesn't.
You can sell insurance to short sellers, AKA do covered calls, at a
really nice price right now. The calls are sellin' great for PFE
too. ...and sellin' covered calls is certainly less risky than just
holding the stock. ...but how do I gauge the downside--where's the
bottom? How do we know this won't go the way of Dow Corning or RJR?
...the risk exposure in those two instances didn't have a whole lot
to do with reason, how do I know MRK or PFE will be any
different?
...I don't think you can know. I think you're gambling.
|2.19.06 @ 9:00PM|#
I don't get it, is this Lawyer's Weekly? Why is this a blog
post?
Not exactly Kelo or Rauch, you know?
|2.20.06 @ 9:53AM|#
...I don't think you can know. I think you're
gambling.
Don't worry, he's probably loading up on General Motors as we
speak.
s.m. koppelman|2.20.06 @ 9:57AM|#
That old Henderson and Hooper piece "made Merck's case"? More
like "iterated through Merck PR's talking points". When I see a
line like
they will be victims, not of Merck, but of an overly zealous
and out-of-control legal and political system
in reference to the very kind of tort system libertarians are
always saying should be the basis of settling disputes in the
Platonic Movie-Western World to Come, little alarm bells go off in
my head.
Then when I see, tossed in among what looks like a lot of very
sensible, reasonable argument, a whale of a distortion like that
bit on the numbers of people who die or are hospitalized due to GI
problems caused by NSAIDs, the lights start flashing. Why the shift
from incidence rates to counts? Maybe because the
incidence rates are low given the billions of doses taken
each year, so low that they'd put those Vioxx numbers look a little
less benign, especially when people at high risk for GI problems
are already regularly instructed by their doctors to take
acetamenophen and avoid NSAIDs.
To review, which sounds worse?
(1) An increase in heart attacks and strokes that affects less than
one percent of users, or
(2) Going from one colon-polyp patient in 133 having a heart attack
or stroke over a period of time to one in 66 if Vioxx is added to
their regimen?
The former is the way Henderson and Hooper stated it. The latter is
another, less obfuscated way of saying the same thing.
A doubling of heart attack and stroke risk among a population that
has few such incidents per capita is Not So Bad. A doubling among a
population of older patients with other health problems including
high icidence of already-deteriorating cardiovascular systems means
a lot more strokes and heart attacks per capita.
I don't know much about the Irvin case and can't say whether or not
this is a just outcome, and I do agree that it's a shame that Vioxx
isn't available to people for whom the benefits greatly outweigh
the risks, but if that Henderson and Hooper piece is as good and
honest an argument as can be made on Vioxx's behalf, my instinct
should it return to the market is to think it's at least wise to
prescribe it a whole lot less often than it was being
prescribed.
|2.20.06 @ 11:07AM|#
Interesting Cathy Young piece on paid punditry in today's Boston
Globe.
www.boston.com/globe
I mention it, because I doubt readers of this site will see it
otherwise.
|2.20.06 @ 11:20AM|#
Keep defending the rights of those corporate citizens! If real
citizens want any of their rights back...incorporate!!
The right of corporate citizens to profit from death and injury is
absolutely inviolable! (under the new revised version of the US
Constitution.)
Because it's all about corporations acting all corporate-y and
uh...uh...corporate America and stuff.
|2.20.06 @ 12:14PM|#
joe,
"FAG" is the acronym of the Film Actors' Guilt, an association of
public-spirited actors and actresses who are trying to make a
better world, free the influence of evil corporations (EXCEPTION:
entertainment industry corporations. EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION:
Fox).
FAG was smeared in the movie *Team America: World Police,* which
portrayed us as loonies just because we worked with Kim Jong Il to
make the world a peaceful place.
Curse you, Team America: We'll get even with all of you if it's the
last thing we ever do!
R C Dean|2.20.06 @ 12:27PM|#
Half the humor on this site is in the fake email addresses
people use for their pseudonyms.
streisand@butter.com - comic genius!
|2.20.06 @ 12:32PM|#
"(2) Going from one colon-polyp patient in 133 having a
heart attack or stroke over a period of time to one in 66 if Vioxx
is added to their regimen?"
So Vioxx should be prohibited to everyone because people with colon
polyps have an increased risk?
How about this:
If you have colon polyps, no Vioxx for you.
(Didn't read any of the articles.)
R C Dean|2.20.06 @ 1:06PM|#
To review, which sounds worse?
Perhaps a more relevant question would be, which is the most
relevant statistic for setting policy?
(1) An increase in heart attacks and strokes that affects less
than one percent of users, or
(2) Going from one colon-polyp patient in 133 having a heart attack
or stroke over a period of time to one in 66 if Vioxx is added to
their regimen?
If we are talking about setting policy for the entire universe of
Vioxx users, clearly the first factoid is the most relevant. The
second factoid is the important one only for that small fraction of
Vioxx users who are being treated for colon polyps.
The former is the way Henderson and Hooper stated it. The
latter is another, less obfuscated way of saying the same
thing.
Actually, no. These two factoids say very different things. One
assesses risk for all patients, one for a subset of all
patients.
|2.20.06 @ 1:26PM|#
I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED I WANT TO BE TEABAGGED
|2.20.06 @ 2:05PM|#
Barbara,
There is no "Film Actors Guild."
It's the Screen Actor's Guild, or "SAG."
|2.20.06 @ 2:57PM|#
I like calling it the Film Actors Guild. Most people don't give it a second thought.
|2.20.06 @ 3:02PM|#
joe, do you feer ronery being the onry person who's never seen "Team America: Worrd Porice"?
|2.20.06 @ 3:25PM|#
joe,
[This post is split into 3 because having 3 links gets my post
quarantined 1/3]
Thanks for tipping me off to
Cathy Young's article.
|2.20.06 @ 3:27PM|#
Joe,
I don't see what the Young article has to do with the issue at
hand. From what I remember, Reason covered the whole Merck thing
because it illustrated how most people were irrationally willing to
blame corporations for anything bad. The attitude that a
corporation, by virtue of being a corporation, should get in
trouble regardless of the strength of the case is completely
unfounded-- at least from a libertarian perspective.
Now, and this goes for Amazingdrx too, it is also unfounded to
assume that because someone may support a corporation they must be
in said corporation's pay. If I may be honest, I find such
arguments to be made in bad faith and inconducive to genuine
conversation across ideological lines. I'm a libertarian, and I
like Reason because it is a libertarian magazine. As a libertarian,
I feel beholden to support the corporate wold against ignoramuses
who are unwilling to acknowledge how personally responsible they
are for the squalor of their own lives. Camus, I'm sure, has to
have made a point about this somewhere or other. If you disagree
well great, but it simply has no bearing on the argument as such to
say that some people in some circumstances have taken money
dishonestly thereby marring their criticisms or scholarship. Just
my two cents of course, but it seems like you're trying to rile
people up rather than engage in dialogue.
|2.20.06 @ 3:27PM|#
[3/3]
The difference in how they both presented Fumento's dismissal
prompted me to read the actual
Business Week article. Interesting contrast between the
three.
|2.20.06 @ 3:35PM|#
You wirr eventuary see Team Amelica. It is inevitabre. Inev . . . inevit . . . inevitabre!
R C Dean|2.20.06 @ 3:39PM|#
joe, I'm sure Babs (or Alec Baldwin) would feel better if we
added "SAG" after their names.
Given the current fashionableness of gayness, they probably wish
everyone would add "FAG" instead.
|2.20.06 @ 3:50PM|#
Snide comment from joe about Trey Parker and Matt Stone, libertarians generally, and a movie he hasn't seen, all because he didn't get the joke, in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .
|2.20.06 @ 4:23PM|#
"Barbara,
"There is no 'Film Actors Guild.'
"It's the Screen Actor's Guild, or 'SAG.'"
That's what we *want* you to think! We keep you in the dark while
we scheme to conquer the world.
People . . . people who conquer the world . . . are the luckiest
people in the world . . .
|2.20.06 @ 5:41PM|#
To Mo:
The "wisdom" of crowds also brought the Holocaust, Shrub, and the
Dow Corning lawsuit. I doubt they make rational decisions all of
the time, or even most in such highly technical cases. In this
case, twelve is not a crowd.
I did so offer an alternative. In all product liability suits over
a certain value, the suit should be immediately set to a
class-action status (one trial is infinitely cheaper and more
fair), and the judgement should be passed by a group of
specially-trained, intelligent people with backgrounds in law,
medicine, science, public policy, etc.
You aren't going to get this effect simply by fixing the current
jury selection system. At best, maybe 10% of people really have the
background and capability to decide these cases based on reason.
You are not going to get a jury full of these by the random process
we have now.
|2.20.06 @ 6:49PM|#
...Fumento's dismissal (for not disclosing money from
Monsanto)
FWIW, I don't pay much attention to anyone who accepts money from
the gov't, an institution which is far more dishonest and partisan
than any company I can think of.
|2.20.06 @ 7:09PM|#
Did someone suggest specialized judges? Ugh! ...That solution
sounds like it might be worse than the problem. I'd like to see
better juries, but improving that seems as much a function of
improving people's tolerance for risk rather than a problem of jury
picking. ...improving the average person's understanding of what
reasonable expectation of risk might entail should be the goal, but
how do we do that?
The jury system may not be perfect, but I still think it's better
than all the rest. Legitimacy may require that people have the
ability to insert their stupid opinions into the justice system. I
suspect that as long as we have a free society, we'll have free
juries and judges with the freedom to come to silly conclusions.
...It may just come with the scenery.
I think it was Cavanaugh that wrote something like, "Show me a
society without any frivolous lawsuits, and I'll show you a
totalitarian state." I might suggest a corollary, "Show me a
legitimate jury system, and I'll show you a system with some really
stupid juries."
|2.20.06 @ 7:12PM|#
Don't worry, he's probably loading up on General Motors as
we speak.
Falling knives, on sale, aisle 12.
|2.20.06 @ 7:33PM|#
Yes, thoreau. So ronery. I'll put it on my Netflix list.
eric, I know. Totally OT.
Sorry to disappoint you, Phil. You're really bad at that, btw.
|2.20.06 @ 7:43PM|#
Actually, the facts of this debate are really mercky. But the vioxx of the people must be heard.
|2.20.06 @ 11:20PM|#
a) People are idiots. Therefore juries are idiots. So I'd rather
be tried by a judge (unless I really did it).
b) Anything that hurts big pharma is okay by me. Those people are
fucking pirates (as anyone with a big meds bill will know).
c) Why NOT legislate for "expert juries"? Just make a subset of
science/math workers in the jury database, and call 'em up for
stuff like this. The sample would be large enough to keep the
system unbiased.
s.m. koppelman|2.20.06 @ 11:34PM|#
I don't think anyone even from Merck has said the increased
cardiac event risk affects polyp patients more than other Vioxx
users. It just happened to be the subgroup of Vioxx patients
selected to be the subject of the study in question.
The reason for the FDA's alarm and Merck's withdrawl of the product
from the market was that in a population of patients in an age
range and general state of health congruent with a large plurality
of Vioxx users, the incidence of heart attack and stroke in a
finite period went from one in 133 to one in 66. When risk doubles
from 1 in 100,000 to 1 in 50,000, it's one thing. When it doubles
from 1 in 133 to 1 in 66, it's another. This is a doubling of risk
for people who are at high risk to begin with, and quietly adding
it to the long list of all potential side effects on the package
insert is arguably not adequate notice when distributing a memo to
doctors or issuing an announcement to major medical publications
would get the message out much more effectively.
Furthermore, looks to me like Merck's changes to the package insert
and PDR with the table showing risk spread the incidence rate
across all patients, lumping the short-term Vioxx users with no
measured increase in risk with those who took it long-term and
experienced a more pronounced increase in risk.
Given the two-pronged argument that (1) the legal system is killing
business and that(2) quietly announcing dire news in 2-point type
is legally adequate notice, you'd almost think the libertarian
credo was legalisms for me, but not for thee.
Bonus essay question:
If I were to make a bunch of cupcakes, ship them to people and then
discover later in the day that they were full of shards of glass,
would it be adequate behavior on my part to make a note of it at
the bottom of the terms and conditions page of my website, or would
the notion of personal responsibility that libertarians supposedly
fetishize compel me to do something more, like get on the phone and
contact the people I'd shipped the cupcakes to?
|2.21.06 @ 12:07AM|#
b) Anything that hurts big pharma is okay by me. Those
people are fucking pirates (as anyone with a big meds bill will
know).
Well, buy one of the Pharma ETFs and get rich then. ...and people I
know with chronic conditions would, I think, choose inducement for
a cure over lower medication costs, hands down. ...Most of the ones
I know are relatively young though.
If I were to make a bunch of cupcakes, ship them to people and
then discover later in the day that they were full of shards of
glass, would it be adequate behavior on my part to make a note of
it at the bottom of the terms and conditions page of my website, or
would the notion of personal responsibility that libertarians
supposedly fetishize compel me to do something more, like get on
the phone and contact the people I'd shipped the cupcakes
to?
Glass shard cupcakes cannot be used for their intended purpose.
...and the likelihood of a glass shard cupcake causing damage is
one in one, not one in a hundred and thirty-three or one in
sixty-six.
However, yes, I think a firm has a responsibility to its customers
to let them know about the risks of using its product. But I also
think people should be allowed to make decisions about those risks.
...Surely, there are some people who would benefit from cox
inhibitors, people who don't fit the high risk profile, for
instance.
Vikling "Merkin" Moose|2.21.06 @ 2:03PM|#
whoops late on this:
merkinworld.com
merkin merkin merkin.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245